Jim Steele
NOAA’S Climate.gov’s Ocean Heat Content presents an illustration (graphic A) of changing ocean heat content with this accompanying narrative. “Rising amounts of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to. Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean.” However, their regional changes in heat content are much more consistent with solar heating than from greenhouse theory.
Although greenhouse theory describes rising CO2 as acting like a blanket across the globe that keeps more heat in the ocean, graphic A perfectly depicts asymmetric heating that we would expect from solar heating and ocean circulation (graphic B). The greatest increase in heat content happens along the east coasts (highlighted by red ovals), especially in the Kuroshio Current off Japan, and the Gulf Stream.
Why such regional differences from the same CO2 blanket?
Graphic C, from peer reviewed research (Huang 2015), describes the net heat flux in and out of oceans. The red and yellow colors represent where more heat enters the ocean than leaves, yet NOAA shows cooling in those regions. The blue colors in graphic C, show where more heat is ventilating back to space than that region absorbs, yet NOAA’s graph shows those regions warming! Observations completely contradict NOAA’s greenhouse warming narrative.
The most plausible explanation is based on well-known ocean science. For example, greatest amount of heat flux into the ocean happens in the tropical eastern Pacific, where La Nina-like conditions cause upwelling of cooler waters that reduce cloud cover that increase solar heating! Solar radiation penetrates several meters into the eastern ocean where it can be stored for various lengths of time. That stored solar heat is then transported into the western Pacific where much is then deflected northward along the Kuroshio Current where it ventilates. During La Ninas that heat transport is greater, explaining why NOAA’s observed increase in the regions from 1993 to 2022 correlates with the switch to more La Nina-like conditions during the past 3 decades.
A similar dynamic happens in the Atlantic, where stored tropical heat ventilates from the Gulf Stream and moderates Europe’s winter. Not all the Gulf Stream’s heat ventilates allowing much of the salty warm solar-heated waters to enter the Arctic Ocean, creating a reservoir of warm water between 100- and 900-meters depth, and capable of melting all the Arctic’s sea ice (Polyakov 2017).
In contrast to the fact that CO2 infrared only penetrates the ocean by a few microns, solar heat penetrates several meters. Due to subsurface saltiness that inhibits heat convection back to the surface, some heat is trapped for entire seasons to many decades and centuries. As illustrated in Graphic D, the science of solar ponds demonstrates how the sun heats the subsurface oceans. Despite air temperatures averaging 68°F, solar ponds can fantastically triple temperatures in their bottom layer to over 190°F. For more details explaining the different dynamics that explain why ocean warming is due to solar heating, watch Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To see the asymmetric solar heating effect, compare two SST 7day max plots, 6 months apart:
Given that, can anyone tell what season it is using this current image? (no peeking at the date!):
“Given that, can anyone tell what season it is using this current image? (no peeking at the date!)”
“Now is the winter of our discontent”
Richard III (and apparently smarter than a climate alarmist “scientist”)
Gloucester I think about Richard III
“Now is the Winter of our discontent made glorious Summer by this son of York.”
The original text is “…this sun of York.” It is presumably a pun (sun/son), but it could be something else (https://www.historyextra.com/period/elizabethan/have-we-completely-misinterpreted-shakespeares-richard-iii/)
I have been working on similar charts using the NOAA thermal expansion map. Combine the two and it is clear that both surface temperature and sea level are directly related to solar irradiance. C02 is a blanket pushing approximately 1.5wm/2 of energy to the surface. This is over EVERY meter of the earth equally (note- this is the IPCC claim. Anyone in the know knows that the reality that satalite data and balloon data shows that CO2 ranges from 300ppm to 2000ppm depending on the location, disproving the foundational concept that global CO2 is a well mixed gas averaging a specific number over every meter squared of the earth.)
Assuming CO2 is a well mixed gas as claimed means CO2 effects every part of the world equally. Since every temperature chart shows there isn’t a uniform warming (air, surface, and ocean) APGWT proponants use “forcings” to explain the blantant failure of physics to support their claim of blanket equal warming force generated by CO2. They claim that the inequality is based on amorphous barely quantifiable natural processes that react to increased warming from CO2. CO2 therefore drives the other processes higher. Unfortunately reality disproves this, showinf that warming isn’t following CO2 levels, but instead it is exactly matching solar irradiance and ocean warming- entirely disproving CO2 as a causal factor and relegating it at most to a minor player.
Bingo … 1 parameter in ALL AGW models is CO2 is a well mixed gas … it isn’t ànd can never be …
Almost all the IR from CO2 downwelling emissions comes from within a few meters of the surface. Emissions from higher in the atmosphere get reabsorbed before reaching the surface.
We also know the emissions occur after a CO2 molecule is excited by another molecule, usually O2 or N2, in the atmosphere via collision. Direct readmission after absorption is rare. Hence, the energy is coming out of the lower atmosphere.
This means that when the emission occurs the surface warms and the lower atmosphere cools. The 2LOT will lead to an increase in conduction from the surface back into the lower atmosphere, usually to an O2 or N2 molecule. No magic here, just standard thermodynamic equilibrium processes.
As a result, after the emission event and conduction event the two surfaces are back where they were previously. Nothing has changed. This is why CO2 cannot warm the oceans.
One thing that can occur is when the energy is absorbed by an H2O surface molecule. It may trigger an evaporation event. In this case the energy may be transported away from the surface and eventually up into the upper troposphere. This cools the lower atmosphere and surface.
Increases in CO2 actually cool the oceans. Good thing it also absorbs a little more energy at the edges of the 15 micron window to balance it out.
“Increases in CO2 actually cool the oceans. ”
Complete nonsense
You must have studied
ThermoDUMBnamics in school
Instead of your usual name calling, Richard, why didn’t you explain where this scenario was wrong? Could it be you can’t? It’s all pretty basic physics.
If you can’t beat them with facts use ad hominem attacks (is what I have found with people who do not like ‘climate science’ being challenged in any shape or form. They appear not to understand that Science is Never Settled.
Science is never settled does not mean that every scientific consensus is wrong. Especially a consensus backed by data, such as a near 100% belief there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions add to it.A consensus that has had over a century to be refuted, but all such attempts failed.
Calls to consensus ARE NOT SCIENCE
Why don’t you actually produce some evidence, instead of your incessant prattling !
“Belief” is not “data.” As you have admitted, consensus can be wrong, so it should not be trusted. You leave me with the impression that you don’t know what proof is.
There have been numerous refutations, from no less than esteemed emeritus professors and at least one Nobel Laureate. The counter opinions have not gained traction because the ‘news’ media appear to have an agenda, and if the skeptic is even acknowledged, it us usually denigrated by the likes of Snopes.
There have been enough paradigm shifts over the history of science that any reasonable person should be loath to accept a particular position without a critical examination. Then, they should still reserve a modicum of skepticism that the person easiest to fool — themselves — has indeed been fooled.
You say that you read a lot on the topic. I’m again left with the impression that you don’t understand what you read.
LOL! Snopes? Would that be the same Snopes that thought it important to “fact check” the claim that Biden wore a hard hat backwards once and got it WRONG?
Richard, do you believe that all climate scientists should have open access to climate data and be able to comment on any hypothesis?
Because Net Zero will affect all of our lives quite considerably, should there be live open TV debates with scientists, (on both sides of the argument), which will better inform the ‘dim’ public? Surely government scientists, with all their decades of data, would think, would win hands-down in any debate (?)
Ever look at the failed predictions on the title bar?
CAGW (or AGW, if you prefer) has refuted itself.
Sure, but how much does it add to it? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say CO2 has some effect on the climate- but is it trivial or is the control knob for the climate? You don’t know- nor does anyone else. So your conclusions are simple minded and useless. So, your consensus hasn’t been refuted NOR proven- so in fact, the science is not settled. Until you or anyone can prove what the ECS beyond a shadow of a doubt- to have a broad range that differs by several hundred percent is nothing but fantasy.
Joseph Zorrin:
I have repeatedly pointed out that the millions of tons of decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, starting circa 1980, HAS to be the cause of all of our modern warming.
The cleaner the air, the warmer it will get! This is irrefutable!
There is no greenhouse effect … there is an insulation effect … that is all CO2 is … insulation … it can’t create heat … all it can do is slow down the transfer of heat from hot to cold objects …
“all it can do is slow down the transfer of heat from hot to cold objects …”
There is no evidence it does that, in fact, when tested as a possible gas in double glazing, it actually conducted MORE energy through the double glazing due to its radiative transfer properties.
There really isn’t any proof that it slows down heat transfer when you integrate the entire heat loss over time. If the insulative effect causes the temperature to go up then the radiation loss goes up as well (see Planck) since the body will radiate at a higher rate because of the higher temp.
Comparing CO2 to a blanket is really a flawed comparison. A blanket slows down heat loss by restricting conduction of heat, not radiative heat. CO2 is not a blanket, it doesn’t really slow down conductive heat loss, only radiative heat loss. Radiative heat loss doesn’t follow the same equation as conductive heat loss.
It’s just one more flawed piece of physics in climate science and climate models. You would think that sooner or later a light bulb would flicker on over the head of those in climate science advocating for CO2 and “back radiation” being the driver of Tmin increases but it just never seems to happen.
Nearly 100% of scientists who lived on our planet in the past century are wrong about CO2, including Richard Lindzen and William Happer, both Ph.D.’s ,and you, some armchair pretend to be a scientist poster afraid to use his surname, are right?
That takes some ego
Ego is all you have
NO EVIDENCE. !
But for absolutely no reason 😀
Once again you avoid discussing the science. Why is that? All you had to do is point out where my description goes wrong.
I’m essentially pointing out 1) why Gray/Schwartz 2010 found negative water vapor feedback, 2) why Miskolczi 2023 found negative water vapor feedback and 3) why Christy et al 2016 couldn’t find a tropical hot spot (which implies negative water vapor feedback.
Even Dr. Happer mentioned the problems with water vapor in his paper.
“, over 70 years of radiosonde observations indicate relative humidity has decreased slightly in the upper atmosphere [38].”,
so even he admits this view is undecided.
Maybe it’s time for you to stop attacking people based on what appears to be an appeal to authority with absolutely no scientific basis.
Appeals to authority only have merit when challenging specific points.
You have to remember, dickie-green has very little education in physics, thermodynamics, or science in general. His understanding is very limited.
Yes, that is becoming obvious.
For some reason, I seem to recall RG whining about name calling and declaring that having to resort to insults means you have no arguments.
Mu first comment on this article discussed science. When the insults start, I will respond similarly.
When there are stupid posts such as claiming CO2 causes global cooling, it is a waste of my time to do anything but remind others that some posters here are just ignorant science deniers.
NO, you have not presented any science, just your egotistically baseless opinion.
Yes, we are all well aware you are an ignorant science denier.
Your first comment here was nonsense, claiming that cloud data doesn’t exist and has in so far nothing to do with a discussion about science. That for you is impossible.
Wrong, I commented before you did and you chose to insult me. On top of that, it appears you have zero knowledge of the basic science I mentioned. You could have easily just ignored my comment.
If you had tried to understand my comment you would have realized I never said “CO2 causes global cooling”. So, even your excuse fails. It appears you are the typical narcissistic loudmouth who provides nothing of value. Every one of your comments is the epitome of wasting time.
New Study Concludes ‘CO2 Can Have No Measurable Effect On Ocean Temperatures’ (notrickszone.com)
NTZ’s Kenneth Richard will publish any study, no matter how lame, that claims CO2 does nothing, because he is a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter.
And dickie-boy will be totally unable to refute that study, because his grasp of science is so incredibly limited.
Mindless yapping, as is dickie-boy’s only MO… is not science.
The issue isn’t whether CO2 has absorption features in the IR region of the EM spectrum, which are demonstrated easily, but, rather, what the net effect is of all the feedback loops in a complex, dynamic system, which is understood incompletely. The Global Circulation Models attempt to answer that question. However, they all run warm (and always have), often provide contradictory precipitation projections at the regional level, and do a poor job of reproducing the Köppen–Geiger climate zones. Today’s computers can’t handle the energy exchange in clouds at the same spatial resolution as the other forcing variables, and have to be parameterized (best guess average behavior). The range in the projections of the various climate models is so large that the only way that they can in any way be called ‘correct’ or ‘in agreement,’ is that they all show an increasing trend, which is qualitative, and not at all useful in a quantitative application.
Anyone who thinks that the results of GCMs are trustworthy for quantitative predictions doesn’t understand the problem.
Have you ever read T. C. Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses?
If you increase reflectivity of thermal energy before it hits the surface then how do you propose that energy is obsorbed by the ocean? That is like saying that putting a shade over grass increases the amount of light the grass gets. Yes. The physics are more complex than that, but the premise is the same. Its why the IPCC states that higher altitudes will warm faster- they know (althought often refuse to apply) the laws of physics. Since the lower atmosphere is mostly opaque to CO2 IR the extra CO2 IR absorption will impact the higher altitudes, not the surface.
Any remaining CO2 IR will barely penetrate the top millimeter, and most will merely excite the top layer of atoms, at most. The deep ocean is warming, and CO2 can’t get much deeper than the top atoms. So any enery getting to the ocean surface from CO2 increases will be miniscule- and yet all layers of the ocean are warming.
Big Pile of Baloney
LOL another genius reply by RG to wiseassanalytics‘ scientific analysis. LOL
“Big Pile of Baloney”
Is that the title of chapter 3 of your autobiography ??
Another “fact” of the same caliber as “belief”
Richard has turned into a first class troll. All hat, no horse.
Mr. H: I respectfully disagree. Mr. Greene is, at best, a second class (my estimation is third rate) troll. A clear pattern emerges, where his reply to a science-supported post is “100% of scientists believe……”. That draws a mix of replies, some science, some insults (not merely deserved, he sought them). His comments are quite predictable, and getting more and more dull. He rehashes refuted points only to say “unrefuted” or such. He’s reduced himself to laughingstock, too low for “first class” status, not even in the a**hole dep’t.
I’m not even sure about the hat.
it’s important to be careful when interpreting surface net flux. It is the sum of the four terms: the incoming short-waves, the outgoing sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and long-wave radiation. We cannot infer directly from the areas in blue in the graphic that “more heat is ventilating back to space than that region absorbs”. While novice activists, amateur sleuths, and simple communication products may be suggestive that heat accumulation mechanisms are directly an instantaneous result of longwave force, I think it is not controversial that the effective accumulation is in the shortwave.
as a point of clarity for those here, if this comment has made you feel upset in some way, the linkages between instantaneous force and the effective mechanism of energy accumulation are muddy and not well resolved in currently available models and literature. In other words, while it is recognized that the supposed earth energy (im)balance is attributable to more SW absorption outweighing the increase in LW emission, the mechanisms are not well resolved.
Jim Steele:
You say “La Nina-like conditions cause up-welling of cooler waters that reduce cloud cover that increases solar heating”
This analysis is INCORRECT..
La Ninas are caused by increased levels of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, which causes oceanic waters to cool down. When those aerosols eventually settle out, warming occurs because of the less polluted air, and an El Nino forms, with reduced cloud cover due to fewer SO2 aerosol nucleation sites in the atmosphere.
The correlation with volcanic eruptions and the formation of a La Nina is 100% (unless the eruption occurs during an El Nino)
Data ? Proof ?
Krishna Gans:
I have an article that discusses this in more detail
“The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Doesn’t convince me, sorry
The actual cause of ENSO (El Nino / La Nina) cycles is the long-period tidal force impacting the differential density of the thermocline. Some of this is due to temperature differences and some from salinity. The validation of this idea is coming from the machine learning experiments being performed at Google, NVIDIA, and Huawei. Check the cross-validation, as just like with conventional tidal analysis, one can calibrate cycles in one time interval and then use that mapping to extrapolate to any other time interval. The machine learning has mastered this approach and climate science is just catching up.
It is well known, and confirmed by data from actual measurements of a multitude of variables, that El Nino events are initiated by westerly wind bursts over the west Pacific warm pool.
Based on your comment, Paul Pukite, it sounds like “machine learning” has been programmed to learn by people who do not understand ENSO basics.
Regards,
Bob
DEEP OCEAN VOLCANOS CAUSE INCREASED GLOBAL WARMING BY PERIODIC EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
EXCERPT
El Niño Heat Source Point
.
One of the most determining factors regarding weather and climate are El Niños.
El Niños are a periodic phenomenon that causes a rapid increase in Pacific Ocean and lower-atmospheric temperatures
An El Niño (weak to very strong) occurs, on average, every 3.6 years. See Image 1A
The lower-atmosphere is also known as the troposphere, where almost all weather takes places
All El Ninos originate in the exact same deep ocean seafloor located east of Papua New Guinea and west of the Solomon Islands. See Image 5.
That about 9000-meter-deep trench has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. See Image 1A
The Heat Source Point covers 150,000 square miles, which is a mere 0.23% of the Pacific Ocean’s 64,092,958 square miles.
That area is one of the most geologically active regions on Earth
It is home to the junction of five extremely active major fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,
It has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents.
It is important to understand, the periodic El Niños have been occurring for many millions of years.
.
The implications are profound, because it strongly suggests, all El Niños have been generated/fueled by
deep-ocean geological heat flow.
This fits very well into Plate Climatology Theory, which states, fixed/non-moving, geological, deep ocean heat sources drive many climate patterns, and climate related events, including the generation of El Niños.
https://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nios-originate-from-geologic-not-atmospheric-sources
https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologist-how-geologic-factors-generate-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/
.
As part of an El Niño pattern, a stream of warm water wells up from the Heat Point Source Point, departing from there, towards the Peruvian coast. The upwelling weakens the trade winds. With weakened trade winds come changes in air pressure and wind speeds, which push warm water toward the west coast of South America.
As a result of the warmer water, there is more rising air motion and the atmospheric pressure in the eastern Pacific drops, because of increased water vapor, which weighs only 18 g/mole, whereas air weighs about 29 g/mole. See Image 11
At higher latitudes, these changes in the tropics allow the Pacific Jet Stream, a narrow current of air flowing from west to east, to be pushed south and spread further east.
The jet stream steers weather systems, thereby determining the weather patterns seen across a wide geographic range.
.
Image 1A shows strong El Niño effects peaking in late-summer/early-fall of 2023, which coincided with a
lower-atmosphere temperature increase of about 0.3 C. See Image 7 and below Hunga Tonga section
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Image 7 shows, El Niño effects can be dominant for a lower-atmospheric temperature increase.
The El Nino of late-summer of 2021 was exceptional, as its effects appeared in late-summer/early-fall in West Europe, etc, in 2023.
.
As a result, the El Niño temperature increase was added to the normally high, late-summer/early-fall temperatures, typical for the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the “Boiling Earth” comment
As a result, a long, but late, very warm “Indian Summer” developed, that continued until winter, when polar vortex weather asserts itself, as has already occurred in Sweden, Norway, Siberia, etc.
.
Image 1A
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
.
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f, where h is 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, is the speed of light in a vacuum.
If photon wavelength is 15 micron, the photon energy is 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule
.
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers.
CO2 absorb no IR energy at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, per Image 11A
CO2 absorbs IR energy at these finger print frequencies, which is only about 8% of the available IR energy reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere.
The other 92% is absorbed by water vapor, except for the blue part, which escapes to space through the atmospheric window, per Image 11A
As that 8% of all IR energy is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second).
That heat is distributed, by means of energy and mass transfer, and phase transitions (conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation), to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% Argon; those three have no IR windows.
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons, i.e., that 99.9% gets heated and cooled by conduction and convection
After some time, that heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere.
.
H2O molecules, as water vapor, on worldwide average, are at least 9.54 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules, about 21.3 times, in temperate zones.
Water vapor has a much more effective fingerprint spectrum than CO2
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O, which has:
1) at least a three times wider spectrum than CO2, and
2) absorbs more IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, which have more energy, per Image 11A and E = h x f equation.
.
It is obviously dishonest to officially claim water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules, on worldwide average, absorb at least 9.54 x 3 = 28.6 times more IR photons, with many energies, than CO2 molecules; at least 21.3 x 3 = 63.9 times more, in temperate zones.
This means water vapor absorbing IR photons will totally swamp whatever CO2 does.
See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A
wilpost:
Your reference is pure nonsense:
NASA/GMAO Re-Analysis images are archived back to 1980, and any known VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption can be viewed by examining their Chem Map images for SO2.
If there were any underwater eruptions large enough to cause any warming, there would SO2 emissions, and no such emissions are known, apart from the VEI5 Hunga Tonga, eruption, which caused no detectable instantaneous warming. …
Black or White smoker emitt what ever and it doesn’t appear in the atmosphere and stays under water.
Krishna Gans:
So what. They don’t cause any El Ninos, or other detectable ocean warming.
“They don’t cause any El Ninos”
SO2 certainly doesn’t…
Do you boil your water by removing SO2 from above it..
Or do you boil your water by heating from below. ?
Sorry, but your conjecture is weak at best, and has very little scientific merit.
bnice2000
I have NEVER said that SO2 causes any warming.
Its role in our atmosphere is to cause cooling. If it is removed from our atmosphere, warming naturally occurs, due to the cleaner, less polluted air.
This is NOT a conjecture, but a repeatedly proven fact..
How do you know that?
rah
Sorry, your comment got separated, which comment are you referring to?
A WUWT thread would not be complete without at least one long post from an El Nino Volcano Nutter.
Says dickie-boy, who’s posts are irrelevant non-science whinging.
His posts are so DUMB that they SUBTRACT from any scientific discussion.
Do you still heat water from above by using dry-ice, dickie..?
I don’t know about the true root cause(s) of the Niño/ Niña, but I do believe that dismissing abyssal geothermal warming out of hand when we know so little about the deep oceans bottoms is dumb. Even considering it and saying it should get more research funding is considered heresy by the disciples of the magic molecule because it threatens their belief in their all powerful Green House Gas God.
Unforecasted, discrete plumes of warm water are emerging all the time. The big one off the east coast of Australia that started emerging three weeks ago is now 3 deg C warmer than the surrounding waters. It is effecting the cycling of the MJO and thus our weather. It corresponded with increased seismic activity.
To dismiss out of hand the notion that the very processes which form the continents and oceans as we know them could have a significant effect on ocean temps when we know so little about what is happening down there is motivated by a fear of what
may be found if such research got a bigger piece of the grants that the government continues shower on “science” they have repeatedly stated is “settled”.
rah:
They are not being dismissed out of hand
There have been 36 El Nino events since 1900,and the cause of each one has been identified. That is, there are no significant ocean events for which the cause is not known.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.9.1.1306
No such association exists. ENSO is a coupled oceanic/atmospheric phenomenon. The association between the air pressure oscillation between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia and the El Niño/La Niña oscillation has long been observed.
Los Niños are caused by weakened or even reversed trade winds, which allow warm water to slosh across the Pacific to reach equatorial South America.
Las Niñas form when they blow more strongly than average, piling up warm water in the western tropical Pacific, permitting cool water to well up off Ecuador.
Average wind conditions, called La Nada, let warm water into the central Pacific, but not all the way to Ecuador.
It’s all down to the trades, including the unusual modoki Niña and Niño conditions.
You could look it up. As with real science, issues remain controversial, such as what causes air pressure and wind speed to vary.
I tend to agree with you Milo. I’m only thinking intuitively here, open as always to seeing actual data. But it seems to me that the heat content of a relatively thin layer of periodically erupting underwater lava over less than a quarter percent of the Pacific seabed is probably fairly trivial compared with the heat content of the 100-m thick surface layer of the entire tropical Pacific ocean absorbing shortwave.
Another intuited thought is that superheated water and steam at the seabed is going to convect upward and mix turbulently into extremely cold water that is not stagnant in the first place. It is not like heating water in a saucepan. Deep currents are constantly supplying new frigid water to the lava surface and pushing the heated water ‘off the heat source’.
It seems unlikely, given the extremely excellent thermal conductivity of water, and the huge mismatch in mass, that it can rise very far through 4000 meters of cold water in order to have a significant effect on surface temperatures and ENSO phenomena.
Milo:
“No such association exists”
It absolutely does, and you CANNOT prove otherwise.
No-one can prove Goldilocks didn’t exist, either..
Or the Big Bad Wolf.
Correlation isn’t causation.
Hey Burl, you are stealing my down votes!
Everyone gets what he deserves 😀
Pipe down Richard there are plenty to go around; you can both have some.
Typical leftist, only wants to TAKE, never to share.
BurlHenry wrote, “La Ninas are caused by increased levels of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, which causes oceanic waters to cool down.”
That is the most absurd thing I’ve seen written here at WUWT. Do not tell Jim that he’s incorrect when it’s you who’s wrong.
Bye Burl,
Bob
Bob Tisdale:
For your information, VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions spew sulfurous compounds into the stratosphere, where they are converted into SO2 aerosols (tiny droplets of Sulfuric Acid).
According to NASA’s fact sheet on atmospheric aerosols “SO2 Aerosols: What are they, and why are they so important” , they state that BOTH stratospheric and tropospheric SO2 aerosols “are reflective and cool the Earth’s surface”. And it follows that the more there are, the cooler it will get (recall Pinatubo).
Which is why there is 100% correlation between the occurrence of a La Nina after a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption (except when the eruption occurs during an El Nino)..
Sorry, but your ignorance is showing!
This recent paper, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376843400_Observed_humidity_trends_in_dry_regions_contradict_climate_models.
provides evidence that water vapor levels in the atmosphere are not maintaining a constant relative humidity over time. Ironically, the authors point out many issues that this might lead to, but entirely miss the 900 pound gorilla in the room that according to the Charney Report of 1979 whose conclusions have become the basis for virtually all climate models, that while about 1 degree C of warming would occur from a doubling of CO2 another 2 degrees C of warming would result from the increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Without the water vapor component the models should all be running hot which is exactly what is happening.
Perhaps the issue here isn’t :the missing heat in the ocean”, it’s the missing water vapor in the atmosphere!!!
Spec. humidity at 300mb data
Rel. humidity at 300mb data
“it’s the missing water vapor in the atmosphere!!!”
The claimed water vapor positive feedback is needed to amplify te lab spectroscopy effect of CO2 alone and scare people.
Unfortunately there are no data for global average annual water vapor with which to determine j how much water vapor changes versus average temperature.
That’s why scientists usually say water vapor average 2% to 3% globally, which sounds smarter than saying we have no global average annual water vapor data and do not know.
https://scitechdaily.com/desert-paradox-dry-regions-defy-climate-change-moisture-predictions/
You don’t know doesn’t meen no-one knows 😀
Yep, it is funny that dickie assumes everyone is as ignorant as he is.
The CO2 Does Nothing Butter is back with more of his usual bias. When you start by assuming CO2 does nothing, then all warming must be natural?
The TOA solar energy has not increased since the 1970s. But never mind that.
SO2 emissions have decreased since 1980. That would cause more sunlight to reach Earth’s surface. SO2 emissions have widespread influence on the Northern Hemisphere, but especially in the Arctic and the Mediterranean and northern Africa. In all cases, sulfate changes are nearly entirely confined to the Northern Hemisphere.
How about changes in daytime cloudiness allowing more sunlight to reach Earth’s surface? We’ll just check the trend of global annual average daytime cloudiness over several decades. Oh oh. There are no such data, so we have no idea what changes in cloudiness have done to the climate.
Now we have the fact that global warming is not perfectly even across the globe. But that fact does not refute that manmade CO2 emissions make the planet warmer, including the land and oceans. Because local climates change is the NET result of ALL global, regional and local climate change variables. There is no reason to expect the same climate change everywhere.
Mr. Steele, as a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter, simply ignores all evidence of manmade causes of global warming.
While the Climate Howlers ignore all evidence of natural causes of global warming.
So far the evidence is stronger for manmade climate change since 1940 but we still have insufficient data on global annual average day and night cloudiness to know what percentage of climate change since 1940 was manmade or natural
The scientific answer is “we do not know” but Nutters demand answers stated wth 100% confidence.
The debate between the CO2 Does Nothing Nutters, and the CO2 Does Everything Nutters, is best described as a debate between Dumb and Dumber.
I’ll await the usual no science insult posts and the childish you can’t prove AGW exists posts by the CO2 Does Nothing Nutters. Please do not disappoint me.
Maybe Steele can get a moderator to move this comment to the end of the thread so few people will see it?
Which charm school did you go to?
The one run by wolves.
Wolverhampton Wanderers?
nah… one run by muppets and sock-puppets…
Dickie-boy is totally toothless.
You’re thinking of wolverines I believe.
RG, school ? He passed at high-speed in a low level mission 😀
Hairy Krishna, you will have to explain that insult so I get the joke.
The Don Rickles Charm School. Voted most likely to bomb at a comedy club.
You are certainly “bombing”
Outing yourself as a complete loser with every post you make.
We’ll just check the trend of global annual average daytime cloudiness over several decades. Oh oh. There are no such data, so we have no idea what changes in cloudiness have done to the climate.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCover_and_MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
What in your oppinion does that mean ? 😀
Is there anything you know ?
Seems you are a maso, always making a fool of yourself
Krishna Gans
Also a other way to check daytime cloudiness over several decades is to see the trends in the annual total sunshine hours records that many country’s have.
Here in the UK they date back to 1910.
UK Sunshine hours, did you say ?
But oceans are 71% of the planet and humans live on only about 1.5% of all land surfaces.
How would you count partial sunshine when a cloud passes over the sun for your local measurement?
A pyranometer is able to do that, read some science and used equipment
Krishna,
Richard is just a pseudoscientific loudmouth, a lukewarmist troll. It’s obvious that he couldn’t care less about genuine scientific discourse or expanding his knowledge. Instead, he adamantly insists that CO2 is the be-all and end-all, conveniently ignoring any hint of future colder temperatures. It’s like dealing with a petulant child; he’s probably too busy fretting over his precious Southeast Michigan winters to bother with facts or reason.
But not too busy to say there is no science in his insult post and Walter Hogle is a bum
Poor dickie.. you really have run out of material, haven’t you.
There is no science required to illuminate your interminable dribbling.
Fake statistic
No such data exist as a global average.
There can be local averages but they are far from accurate.
Are you arguing that such data are not widespread enough in order to draw any real conclusions?
In the absence of satellites, everything directly observable is local! If we consider proxies, those will be local as well.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm
“Fake statistic“
Ahh… we have chapter 4 title of your autobiography.
You really have a very difficult time with actual data, don’t you, db.
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
.
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f, where h is 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, is the speed of light in a vacuum.
If photon wavelength is 15 micron, the photon energy is 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule
.
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers.
CO2 absorb no IR energy at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, per Image 11A
CO2 absorbs IR energy at these finger print frequencies, which is only about 8% of the available IR energy reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere.
The other 92% is absorbed by water vapor, except for the blue part, which escapes to space through the atmospheric window, per Image 11A
As that 8% of all IR energy is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second).
That heat is distributed, by means of energy and mass transfer, and phase transitions (conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation), to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% Argon; those three have no IR windows.
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons, i.e., that 99.9% gets heated and cooled by conduction and convection
After some time, that heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere.
.
H2O molecules, as water vapor, on worldwide average, are at least 9.54 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules, about 21.3 times, in temperate zones.
Water vapor has a much more effective fingerprint spectrum than CO2
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O, which has:
1) at least a three times wider spectrum than CO2, and
2) absorbs more IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, which have more energy, per Image 11A and E = h x f equation.
.
It is obviously dishonest to officially claim water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules, on worldwide average, absorb at least 9.54 x 3 = 28.6 times more IR photons, with many energies, than CO2 molecules; at least 21.3 x 3 = 63.9 times more, in temperate zones.
This means water vapor absorbing IR photons will totally swamp whatever CO2 does.
See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A
You are talking over his head. The guy is a meglomaniac with a poor understanding of science which is probably why he never backs up his comments with data and references.
“The guy is a meglomaniac”
He wants to rule Clown School !!
The Don Rickles of WUWT, bNasty2000, is slipping. Now the insults are just lame, like he is.
Sorry dickie-boy, you just FAILED… even as a low-level clown.
Don Rickles was an exceptionally clever and funny person.
Thanks Dickie ! 🙂
Here is another graph showing CO2 doesn’t do what you claim. Again for the unteenth time I ask if the graph is wrong? If so why?
I have supplied you with experiment developed graphs to show you are in error, but never say why the graphs are wrong or change your tune.
The difference in slope between your run 1 and run 2 is likely the distance your heat lamp was from the jars. Did you try reversing the jar positions ? Did you try putting CO2 in the air jar and vice versa leaving all else unchanged ? What the jars were made of, jar wall thickness, jar weights, how far they sat from the edge of the table thus affecting convection, what surroundings affected rate of IR leaving each jar ?….all these are more important factors in the “2 jar experiment” than whether the jars contain CO2 or air. The experiment can just as easily give results you weren’t expecting…Usually the jar on the “wall with windows” side of the experimental set-up doesn’t warm as quickly….
This is a result from Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment. His explanation what he did seems reasonable. If interested read his article on it.
A heat lamp and jars?
That there is real Ph.D. science.
Then the chart is ok since you can’t counter it.
Cheers.
“A heat lamp and jars?”
Yet it is what Arrhenius used. !
You have just destroyed your own CO2 warming fetish, dickie-boy !!
I can’t read the graph but I’m confident if you published it, then it’s wrong.
Your incompetence, is not his problem..
… it is yours.
Richard Greene:
The CO2 does nothing crowd are correct, but so are those who maintain that all of our modern warming is man-made.
See: “SO2 aerosol removal: The cause of global warming
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
SO2 emissions increase could explain the global cooling from 1940 yo 1075 and reduced SO2 emissions can explain sme of the global warming after 1980.
That does not eliminate the warming effects of CO2, mainly after 1975.
I won’t call you an SO2 Nutter because SO2 emissions are a valid manmade and natural cause of climate change.
The SO2 from volcanoes
us believed to be a large portion of total SO2 emissions BUT there are no global annual average data for volcano SO2 emissions to know if the trend is increasing, decreasing or steady.
Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man’s activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year.
Richard Greene:
Between 1980 and 2019, industrial SO2 aerosol emissions into the troposphere fell from 139 million tons to 83 million tons, a decline of 56 million tons.
Considering that the average VEI4 volcanic eruption injects only 0.2 million tons of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, causing ~0.2 Deg C of cooling (and ~.0.2 Deg. C of warming), when they eventually settle out, the warming caused by a 56 million ton decrease in the atmospheric loading of SO2 aerosols easily accounts for ALL of our modern (since 1980) warming.
Blaming the inevitable warming from fewer SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere on rising CO2 levels is a monumental hoax!
“That does not eliminate the warming effects of CO2”
There is absolutely ZERO evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 in the atmospheric data.
You have helped prove that, by never being able to produce any.
You are still grasping in vain to your brain-washed AGW fantasies, because you don’t have the scientific understanding or knowledge to do anything else.
Just “believe” [spooky music] what they tell you dickie-boy…
… don’t worry about facts and evidence.
Typical comment from Greene. Obviously, did not read the article nor understand what was being stated.
I understand Steele is a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter while almost 100% of scientists who have lived on this planet in the past century disagree.
Anpther typical RG post denying the science, while offering nothing but insults. I am beginning to agree with others that RG is just an alarmist troll or alarmist’s AI bot intended on preventing meaningful scientific discussions on climate.
For example, my article here never claimed to know changes in global cloud cover, only the well known fact that La Nina like conditions reduce cloud cover in the eastern tropical Pacific, where the increasing solar heating increases heat flux into the ocean waters. Dishonest trolls like RG try to divert attention from that fact by alluding to the difficulties of determining changes in global cloud cover.
You gotta wonder how much these alarmist troll have been groomed and are getting paid to sell their souls for such dishonest posts!
Understand that dickie-boy has absolutely ZERO science to counter reality.
Consensus is a FAR-LEFT NO-SCIENCE crutch that he clings to, to hide his ignorance.
Still waiting for evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.
You need to ask yourself why you are incapable of producing any.
“The CO2 Does Nothing Butter is back…”
Eureka! If only we had known a dairy product could counteract CO2, we could have put on more cows and udderly solved AGW a long time ago! (yes, /jk, obviously a typo but funny anyway)
Fizzy Butter !!
… nah.. I don’t like the idea.
I just noticed the edit feature has returned here, I hope to be able to edit bNasty2000’s comments so they make sense.
Better if you spend time editing your messy posts first.
Poor dickie-boy.. he really does have that far-left victimhood whinging down pat, doesn’t he. !
Poor dickie-boy…. seems I have “vacant possession” of your brain cavity….
Mr. Greene: The edit button is no better than the user. It can’t help your comments, but you seem to think it would be OK for you to edit the comments of others. Who thinks like that??!!
“Who thinks like that??!!”
A rabid leftist, of course.
An arrogant control freak, wanting to rule what other say…
… because he has no control over the idiocy exposed by his own posts.
So much hatred, so little science. Lots of nonsense.
Typical RG post.
PS, ending a post that is nothing but insults, predicting that there will be insults thrown back at you.
Classic hypocrisy, but that’s what we have come to expect from you.
Looks like my prediction was right. I also predicted the future climate would be warmer, unless it got colder.
Yet another VERY DUMB, and meaningless comment from dickie-boy.
All he seems capable of.
And yet you continue to provide ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that CO2 does anything.
Blethering and blustering ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
Solar energy has been at a high level since the 1970. as shown by the 30 year trailing average TSI
And do try to learn that TSI is not the only solar variable.
That would just show your inbuilt ignorance as an anti-science AGW Nutter.
True thst TSI is only one metric. A another is surface Absorbed solar and cloud cover.
BS chart
NASA satellite TOA solar energy has declined slightly in the satellite age.
Prior TSI numbers are BS based on sunspot counts, not real measurments
.
You believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest (you remain perpetually ignorant).
Yep, real data is always BS to you… unless it supports your brain-washed non-science.
IPCC chart before they changed it for a bogus, adjusted version due to political intervention. It’s the sun stupid.
Actual real scientists (ie NOT you) disagree.
New Study Concludes ‘CO2 Can Have No Measurable Effect On Ocean Temperatures’ (notrickszone.com)
Dickie-boy will just remain deliberately ignorant of actual science.
…. just so he can feed his arrogance and his ego.
Dickie-boy is a monkey.
“Dickie-boy is a monkey.”
Wow, that is very unfair to monkeys. !!
It’s stated in a “study” therefore it is true ONLY if bNasty likes that study.
Never mind thousands of studies that disagree. They will be avoided due to confirmation bias.
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change can be caused by humans. Never mind them.
Why don’t you just say that you are totally incapable of countering anything in the paper.
Save time and save making even more of a fool of yourself.
Consensus again… lol… so facile and flaccid !!
You are as Naomi Oreskes unable to google and/or count correctly 😀
Yikes. You’ve truly hit rock bottom, haven’t you?
What science is that claim based on?
If you specifically select ONLY papers that agree with the AGW agenda…
… then 99.9% of them agree that climate change can be caused by humans
Pretty sure that is what he means.
ie , dickie has fallen for one of the biggest CON-JOBS there is around.
I have a struggle believing that even he is really that dumb….
… but he keeps proving me wrong.
Mr. Hogle: I conclude that he knows it’s a grotesque gaslighting custom-made for the site that exposed the “consensus” as both fake and immaterial. He may have hit rock bottom, but he doesn’t understand geology well enough to see it.
Caught in the quicksand of his own mind.
Human emissions of CO2 dropped 6% in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic with its lockdowns and so forth according to the International Energy Agency but the rate of CO2 increase didn’t change at all.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/global-energy-and-co2-emissions-in-2020
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases plunged 4, 5, 6 or 7 percent in 2020, depending on who you believe.
That is evidence the total global CO2 emissions are a rough estimate, rather than a precise number. I would especially not trust numbers from China.
Variations in natural CO2 carbon cycle can obscure small increases of the atmospheric CO2 in any year.
If you are claiming the +50% CO2 increase since 1850 was nOT caused by manmade CO2 emissions, then you arer a Desperate CO2 denier.
If you claim all the increase is down to human released CO2…
… then you are even more ignorant that everyone thinks you are.
That is straight out of the AGW mantra brain-washing handbook.. like most of the other NON-science you keep sprouting.
Those who know way better than you ever will, have estimated around 15-20% of the highly beneficial increase is due to man.
On a yearly flux basis, humans are only responsible for some 3-4% of CO2, the rest is natural, and natural sources have increased with the highly beneficial warming.
As you said elsewhere.. It doesn’t take much change in natural CO2 flux to make any human CO2 emissions pretty much irrelevant..
Just because you’ve read the entire telephone book doesn’t mean that you understand anything about the lives of the people in its pages, Richard.
(How sad that that the memory of phone books recedes into the mist of time. So many analogies becoming incomprehensible to the younger generations!)
A no science insult post.
Do they still have telephone books?
I suppose it depends on whether it’s relevant to evaluate your credentials for pontificating as you do on climate topics or not. I believe your claim to authority is that you read thousands of studies, am I wrong?
Such a claim if true would not demonstrate that you grasped any of the content necessarily, but it might equip you to comment on the general themes covered by the Climastrology Industrial Complex. Much like a polling company experienced with the opinions of polyamorous people on the topic of chastity, or the merits of Trump policy among Democratic Socialists in New York City.
Mr. Davis: He also speaks to a Ford engineer who might be a six-foot tall rabbit named Harvey. The rabbit really knows his stuff!
Oh, I guess I missed that. If Harvey the Rabbit says so, who am I to question it?
Mr. Greene: We just received our local phone book, and you were featured in the “man yelling at clouds for hire -kids birthday party special” section. Well, you were the only listing.
“a debate between Dumb and Dumber.”
So, well above your level of scientific understanding. !!
Your Billy Madison impersonation continues.
Your first insult post was lame and now you are going downhill.
Your comments are still stuck in the sewerage flow.
Over my head, but looks interesting https://phzoe.com/2022/06/10/20-years-of-climate-change/
Phzoe has a number of insights. Including the validity of 33C vslue being the GHE.
Surely Zoe must have misplaced a couple of significant figures to the right of the decimal point for the annual, average energy flux. After all the money that NASA spends and they are only able to squeeze out a precision of +/-0.00005 W/m^2 from a set of non-stationary data? One would think that they aren’t half trying.
This is obvious nonsense. The ToA solar EMR rises and falls on a daily basis (most people can readily observe this), monthly basis, yearly basis, nutation cycle basis, axis precession cycle basis, axis obliquity cycle basis, and orbit eccentricity basis.
The solar intensity at the Top of the Atmosphere is never the same any any two days anywhere on this plat.
The peak solar intensity in the Northern Hemisphere bottomed 500 years ago. It is on a 9,000 year warming streak and will be 80W/m^2 higher at peak zenith than present.
The notion that CO2 can cause any more warming than its contribution to the overall mass is unscientific claptrap.
Attached depicts the global land warming for January from 1982 to 2022. The very warm regions are below 0C or close to it and has little to no sunshine. Australia is mid summer.
Almost everything Richard Greene writes is either incomplete, questionable or utterly wrong.
Richard Greene has become the resident clown. He likes to put on a show and have everyone laugh at him. He is doing well……
This reply is nuttier than skippy…
The red circles are also where some of the largest cities are situate.
And some of the most intensive agriculture, further inland to support them.
Warm (waste heat) water from the cities and mud from the farms is heating the water
Remember we had a story on how Berlin was going to install heat pumps in underground car parks?
(To harvest heat coming off the cars I think)
I ran some sums for Berlin’s underground railway.
I assumed that the underground system draws a continuous 500MWatt to power itself.
Also that Berlin covers an area of 700 square kilometres and it receives annually 700mm of rain
That much heat into that much water will raise its temp by about 6°C
Just the underground train system
How much energy does Berlin use and where does it go when they’ve finished with it?
What about New York?
What about the water coming off farmland where the farmers have lowered the Albedo from 0.4 to 0.1 with their ploughing, tilling and weed-killing – how much extra energy gets into the rivers draining that land?
Why do NOAA measure Ocean Heat Content in Watts per square metre
Did they use a (NASA) Sputnik to get that number?
How did the Sputnik know it was looking at liquid water or water vapour in the first 100metres of the atmosphere
Or did they measure the temperature (from the engine coolant intakes of ships) and work Stefan backwards?
The ships would be the total destroyers of that data, sitting in ports, harbours and quaysides where the water is heated by the city’s underground system – and what folks flush away from baths, showers, dishwashers, laundry machines etc etc etc
Tom Karl knew what he was doing when he did that – then – did a runner and ‘retired’
It’s more than just waste heat. It’s pollution especially pollution that floats such as plastics. The pollution interferes with evaporation which is one of the ways that water cools.
Microplastics stay near the surface even when other pollutants sink. I suspect they contribute more to “man made global warming” than CO2.
I suspect “microplastics” are rapidly eaten by micro-organisms. The world is full of beasties which will use any source of energy that they can get.
red circles are historically good fishn, due to abundant nutrients and associated large amounts of biomass. Add now, additionally, sediment assisted nutrient discharges from the eroding landscape + direct sewage discharges and you have anomalous algal blooms.
The reality is that the climate system is extremely complex. Many factors have real effects, even most of the stuff Peta spouts regularly.
Just because something has an effect does not mean that it is significant or that it drives the overall net effect of all the myriad factors and interactions.
Probably the single biggest problem in climatology is that most people perceive only one factor—their pet theory—when it’s so much more complicated than they imagine.
Whether you observe that CO2 absorbs IR photons, or aerosols reflect sunlight, or soil erosion darkens the color of water absorbing more of the insolation closer to the surface, or underwater volcanoes warm the ocean, you may be right, (I would say that all of those are true), but none of those factors may be the dominant cause of warming temperatures. Certainly none of those factors are the sole factor. Some of them may be true but utterly trivial.
“Solar radiation penetrates several meters into . . . “
Extra reading with a graphic:
Light may be detected as far as 1,000 meters down in the ocean, but there is rarely any significant light beyond 200 meters.How far does light travel in the ocean? (noaa.gov)
Neptunists and plutonists argued over who was right about the origin of rocks. We now think that sometimes both were right.
“Greenhouse Gases” operate much like this famous creature depending on whether they are over land or water, everybody know this, right?
Very nice Jim.
Jim, you have hit the nail on the head. Errors that deliver the expected answer are the hardest to find.
W/m2 are not equal if the wavelength is not equal. Water and land of equal area are not equal.
These are two huge mistakes that mislead climate science because the errors delivers the answer they went looking for.
You are beginning to realise you were sold a crock of chist with the “greenhouse” fairy tale.
Observations help to prove the point but as soon as you see people writing about “back radiation” you know they have no clue about electro-magnetic energy transmission.
The fact that the IPCC maintain Trenberth’s silly energy balance diagram proves they are will to corrupt science in their globalist push. Mischenko put this nonsense to bed more than a decade ago:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi06610s.html
And yet that silly diagram gets rolled into each Assessment Report.
The deep ocean conveyor recirculates the oceans on about a 1000 year cycle. This guarantees that today’s climate will be a cycle with a trend very much like the climate 1000 years ago.
Science is never settled does not mean that every scientific consensus is wrong.
≈=======$
Actually, the history of science shows that virtually every scientific concensus has been wrong.
500 years from now, much of today’s scientific consensus will look like leeches and bloodletting.
The truth of any scientific theory depends not on how many times it is right. It depends on how many times it is wrong.
Any theory that is wrong one or more times is a failed theory. CO2 struck out long ago with failed prediction after failed prediction.
Both CO2 and conduction return energy from the atmosphere back to the surface. Nowhere in the 33C proposed GHG effect is the warming due to atmospheric conduction. As a result the GHG effect is smaller than believed.
conduction takes solar energy from the surface during the day and stores it in the atmosphere to be returned to the surface at night. Very similar to back radiation..
A reduction in cloud cover associated with cooler sea surface temperatures, is confined to parts of the tropics, and over the Arctic Ocean. The extratropics experience a reduction in cloud cover associated with the warm AMO phase.
UK sunshine hours follow the AMO signal mostly in Winter and Spring, but there is no signal in Summer.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Well CO2 has nothing to do with ocean warming …. but it turns out CO2 is anything but a well mixed gas on a global scale … so even it could effect ocean temperature it would still look different
..
Seems To me that those two red circles also cover areas where those two powerful streams flow into generally shallower waters.
The question is not how the heat gets into the ocean. It is very clear that the Sun warms the ocean and the ocean warms the atmosphere.
Since the Sun is very constant in its energy output, the interesting question is what modulates the net heat flux between the ocean and the atmosphere, because a decrease in that net flux must be why the ocean is warming.
The heat gets out of the ocean mainly by evaporation (100 W/m2), IR (53 W/m2), and conduction (16 W/m2). We don’t know which one is changing the most, but we do know that 96% of the Earth’s energy imbalance remains in the ocean causing its warming. Evaporation is affected by wind speed and temperature, CO2 affects the net IR flux, while the temperature difference and wind speed affect conduction.
It is clear that the atmosphere determines how much heat exits the ocean. In essence, the ocean always opposes climate change, it does not cause it. When the climate is warming, like now, the ocean soaks most of the heat. When the climate is cooling, the ocean releases heat, preventing the atmosphere from cooling too much. That’s why there’s complex life on Earth. The ocean stabilizes the temperature of the planet.
You seem to have gotten it backwards. Yes, the oceans add stability, but they also cause massive atmospheric warming and cooling with just little switches in surface temperature. Thus every hottest year is an El Nino, and no hottest years are la Nina. Stability is a matter of degrees, by global temperature standards the last 12000 years has barely fluxuated and everything is still stable. There is a direct causal relationship between solar irradiance, ocean temp, and air tempersture. As of now no causal connection has been demonstrated linking CO2 to the warming- quite the opposite.
wiseassanalytics, I suggest you have confounded atmospheric temperatures due to ocean dynamics vs the dynamics of bad statistics.
El Ninos bring warmer water to the surface which raises local and the global average temperatures. La Nina brings cooler water to the surface, but that doesnt mean it cooled the air above. It just provided lower ocean surface temperatures that lowers the global average chimeric statistic.
Every research paper I’ve read suggests, about 99% of the time, the ocean surface is warmer than the air at the ocean interface and thus sensible heat is always exiting the ocean.
ENSO is an atmospheric phenomenon imposed on the ocean. It is caused by changes in the wind. No ENSO is possible without changes in the trade winds and Walker circulation.
The atmosphere decides when and how much heat it takes from the ocean. The ocean is a capacitor, charged by the Sun and discharged by the atmosphere. During the present (2 centuries) global warming period the ocean is not the source of the warming because the capacitor is charging, not discharging. This is because the atmosphere is taking less heat out than the Sun is putting in.
Javier, I agree with your statements but I’m curious where you got your numbers for exiting heat: “The heat gets out of the ocean mainly by evaporation (100 W/m2), IR (53 W/m2), and conduction (16 W/m2).
From Wong & Minnett (2018), who determined average flux at the ocean surface when measured at night at sea during two research cruises in tropical and equatorial conditions : LW out 470 W/m2) and combined latent and sensible heat (7 W/m).
I would expect the much higher exiting heat via daytime evaporation that you report, but I am curious about your exiting IR of 53 W/m2? Is it net IR flux? If so that would agree with W&M’s net IR out of 60 W/m2: ( LW out 470 W/m2 minus LW 400 W/m2. )
Hi Jim,
Yes, they are net fluxes. These numbers are in Chapter 10 of my new book. They are from:
Schmitt, R.W., 2018. The ocean’s role in climate. Oceanography, 31(2), pp.32-40.
Very good review.
“Since the Sun is very constant…”
It isn’t though, there are large scale changes in the solar wind temperature/pressure, which are negatively correlated with AMO anomalies. Weaker solar wind states cause negative Northern Annular Mode episodes and regimes, which then drive positive AMO anomalies and phases. Wind driven, as you have noted.
Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum, which is why the long term average AMO cycle frequency is 54 years.
“The ocean stabilizes the temperature of the planet.”
Anyone that lives in San Diego or Boston knows this.
Javier:
“When the climate is cooling, the ocean releases heat”
Why do you say that? There is no evidence that that is happening. As the atmosphere cools down, so does the ocean, although because of its volume there is a lag
CO2 cant warm the ocean, 15 micron energy cant penetrate water. It is physically impossible.
The UAH has always shown the lower troposphere surface, warming at a faster rate than the mid troposphere. In geophysics you try to kill a theory with data if you can, but not in climate science, you ignore the blatant failure, because you have a mortgage, and the truth leaves you un-employed.
Even fitting the last 20 years still holds true.