.
.
Ron Clutz restates some easily demonstrated truth bout the direction of energy flow from ocean to atmosphere.
You only have to compare Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) from HADSST3 with estimates of Global Mean Surface Temperatures (GMST) from Hadcrut4 and RSS.
This first graph shows how global SST has varied since 1850. There are obvious changepoints where the warming or cooling periods have occurred.
This graph shows in green Hadcrut4 estimates of global surface temperature, including ocean SST, and near surface air temperatures over land. The blue line from RSS tracks lower tropospheric air temperatures measured by satellites, not near the surface but many meters higher. Finally, the red line is again Hadsst3 global SST All lines use 30-year averages to reduce annual noise and display longer term patterns.
Strikingly, SST and GMST are almost synonymous from the beginning until about 1980. Then GMST diverges with more warming than global SST. Satellite TLT shows the same patterns but with less warming than the surface. Curious as to the post 1980s…
View original post 433 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Er, given the extent of administrative adjustments that have been made to the Hadcrut datasets, I’m not in the least bit surprised there is a divergence between RSS/UAH and Hadcrut/GISS in the 80s,90s,00s. LOL
This is what I wrote below, the increase in precipitation causes a drop in water vapor in the upper troposphere and the temperature drop.
Probably there has been a large increase in the percentage of ionization of the troposphere.
The graphs are wrong, the 30’s was warmer than today’s temperature.
The same storm that brought snow to the mountains in California this past week will blanket portions of Wyoming, Colorado and South Dakota with up to 2 feet of snow this weekend.
The temperature is already low at the height of 1500 m.
Actual temperature.
The decrease in water vapor in the upper troposphere causes a rapid escape of heat into space.
[…] Empirical Evidence: Oceans Make Climate. […]
In Colorado, including the Denver area, this will be the second snowy Mother’s Day weekend in a row. A storm spanning May 11-12, 2014, brought several inches of snow to the Denver area with 10-30 inches in parts of the foothills and mountains.
The storm this weekend is likely to be the biggest of the snow season in Rapid City and push the city well above average. Prior to this storm, about 36 inches of snow has fallen on Rapid City. Typical seasonal snowfall is about 40 inches.
I don’t know whether the last “430 words” address the direction of energy flow, but these two graphs do not. The ocean covers 70% of the surface, so one would worry if variations in the GMST and the GMSST did not largely agree. What these graphs tell me–and should tell anyone who didn’t actively ignore my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison–is that it is the atmosphere, stupid (I add the “stupid” lovingly, not hatefully, sports fans), that controls the global mean SST (and of course the GMST). I would say (and I’m no expert, but at least I have some common sense) the oceans make weather, not global climate as defined by the GMST (and while they can make regional or local climate–and when are you all going to realize that that is the only “climate change” that can occur, so long as the Sun continues to shine on this world–they only do so in tandem with other local factors like latitude, topography–like mountains, affecting the prevailing winds–and the degree of forestation). The public and internet debate on “climate science” remains a case study in incompetence all around. This generation is failing a critical test.
Hi Harry: The ocean’s surface is on average warmer than the air overlying it.
Cheers
Always thought it interesting that the divergence occurs ~1977ish. Can anyone plot the delta between ocean and land or atmosphere? Looks like a step/shift and then they mostly track rate of change.
ren says: May 10, 2015 at 5:25 pm
“This is what I wrote below, the increase in precipitation causes a drop in water vapor in the upper troposphere and the temperature drop. Probably there has been a large increase in the percentage of ionization of the troposphere.”
ren says: May 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm
“The decrease in water vapor in the upper troposphere causes a rapid escape of heat into space.”
Kind of, perhaps triggers a rapid decrease in temperature! By the time the upper atmosphere stops producing the conversion of latent heat of evaporation to energy which powers EMR to space, all lower atmosphere has already run out of of such conversion (dry lapse rate). That EMR to space will continue now powered only by atmospheric sensible heat. This results in the whole atmospheric column rapidly dropping in temperature, resulting in even more conversion of WV to airborne water condensate (clouds). Little of this condensate (10%) ever reaches the surface (buoyancy in a compressible fluid). The actual transfer of energy by surface evaporation is also 10% what happens to airborne condensate from sunside to nightside. Surface evaporation, as measured by surface participation, only accounts for 75 W/m^2 of radiative exitance to space. 🙂
tallbloke says: May 10, 2015 at 8:26 pm
“Hi Harry: The ocean’s surface is on average warmer than the air overlying it. Cheers”
Location, location, location, and time of day! Averages truly mask most all of what is going on.
Will, please tell me you’re not one of those who believes you can heat a bath with a hairdryer. Solar radiation penetrates up to 100m into the ocean. Radiation from the atmosphere cannot penetrate the surface. The free path length for IR in water is very short. The ocean itself is a ‘greenhouse fluid’ which is heated in 3D by the sun but can only cool in 2D from its surface. The atmosphere slows its rate of cooling, it doesn’t heat it up.
tallbloke says: May 11, 2015 at 8:45 am
“Will, please tell me you’re not one of those who believes you can heat a bath with a hairdryer. Solar radiation penetrates up to 100m into the ocean. Radiation from the atmosphere cannot penetrate the surface. The free path length for IR in water is very short. The ocean itself is a ‘greenhouse fluid’ which is heated in 3D by the sun but can only cool in 2D from its surface. The atmosphere slows its rate of cooling, it doesn’t heat it up.”
No, but dropping the hairdryer in the bath can make you get out quickly!
The “solar blue” is attenuated by 80%, at 100 meters. A good argon-ion laser can do a reliable one way communication to 300 meters. There is no, (zero), radiative flux emitted from atmosphere above 8 meters in the direction of the ocean. The surface conversion of ocean to the water air saturated boundary removes sensible heat from both the air and water. If there is sufficient lateral wind that boundary is quickly lifted to the slightly higher temperature above surface air. The boundry quickly becomes again saturated if sufficient sensible heat in the ocean. This surface evaporation process only accounts for 1/3 of the required radiative exitance to space by the atmosphere. The other 2/3 does or can come from direct solar insolation absorbed by WV and airborne water condensate from 1-2.5 microns, providing the rest of the latent heat sent to space continuously even from the nightside. The sunside outgoing radiative “flux” is higher, but nightside total exitance is greater all powered by latent heat gathered from the sun.
The WV can be considered to “trap heat” for a while, bur the cycle is continuous and repeats every 24 hrs. This water cycle has been around since this planet got water, Never any “greenhouse effect”. 🙂
Will Janoschka we are close to reality.
Figure 2. Idealized portrayal of global deep cumulus rain and cloud areas. The left diagram illustrates the upper-level sinking mass coming from the raining deep Cb cloud. This sinking acts to dry and warm the upper troposphere. The right diagram shows water-vapor and cloud particles being advected from the same high rain areas. Observations indicate that the sinking-drying in the upper troposphere is greater than the water-vapor and cloud water replacement by moist air outward advection and evaporation. Enhanced Cb convection leads to upper-level drying and extra IR loss to space.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/dr-bill-gray-explains-why-climate-models-dont-work/
“Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. Conversely, we suggest that long-term SST warming drives changes in atmosphere parameters at the sea surface, most notably an increase in latent heat flux, and that an acceleration of the hydrological cycle induces a strengthening of the trade winds and an acceleration of the Hadley circulation.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2168-7
Will Janoschka
Variations in the total column water vapour in the atmosphere since July 1983. The upper graph (blue) shows the total amount of water in the atmosphere. The green graph shows the amount of water in the lower troposphere between 1000 and 680 mb, corresponding to altitudes up to about 3 km. The lower red graph shows the amount of water between 680 and 310 mb, corresponding to altitudes from about 3 to 6 km above sea level.
Visible decline since 2000.
http://www.climate4you.com/
ren says: May 11, 2015 at 12:56 pm
“Will Janoschka we are close to reality.
Figure 2. Idealized portrayal of global deep cumulus rain and cloud areas. The left diagram illustrates the upper-level sinking mass coming from the raining deep Cb cloud. This sinking acts to dry and warm the upper troposphere. The right diagram shows water-vapor and cloud particles being advected from the same high rain areas. Observations indicate that the sinking-drying in the upper troposphere is greater than the water-vapor and cloud water replacement by moist air outward advection and evaporation. Enhanced Cb convection leads to upper-level drying and extra IR loss to space.”
Thank you for the graphs, interesting! I think you are over generalizing. The rain has no latent heat remaining, and upon taking on the higher atmospheric temperature at reduced altitude, may actually re evaporate again converting 2500 J/gm of water from insolation radiative energy to latent all over again. When the WV turns into condensate that latent heat actually supplies the power for EMR radiant exitance to space. Since that location is not increasing in temperature there is no increase in your “IR loss to space”. 🙂
This atmospheric conversion process is poorly understood and highly variable! see: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~stevenb/vapor/
In shorter periods of time TSI change by more than 1 W / m ^ 2 depending on solar activity.
Global tropical analysis showing how the 35 years increase in precipitation has brought about a decrease in 300 mb (10 km) relative (RH) and specific (q) humidity.
My project’s study of cumulus convection and tropical cyclone formation over many decades has taught me that the NAS 1979 (Charney) Report assessment that rising CO2 amounts will occur with water-vapor increase is not a realistic assessment of how these parameters change in the upper troposphere.
The author holds an MS (meteorology) and Ph.D. (geophysical sciences) from the University of Chicago. He has been a weather-climate forecaster, researcher, and university graduate school professor for 60 years. He has supervised 50 MS and 20 Ph.D. students. He originated and has been involved with Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasting for the last 31 years.
Interesting post; I think oceans should be considered (next to the sun) as a main cause for the climate change, as underlined at http://www.1ocean-1climate.com. We live on a planet covered mostly by oceans, it’s clear that it has a great impact on the climate.
ren says: May 11, 2015 at 6:15 pm
“Global tropical analysis showing how the 35 years increase in precipitation has brought about a decrease in 300 mb (10 km) relative (RH) and specific (q) humidity.”
I am not doubting that. Dr. Gray however still claims that atmospheric CO2 and H2O absorb exiting radiative flux when they do not and cannot.
Czy Janoschka it must be related to an increase in air ionization (changes in solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field) and with changes TSI, which, as I showed above, may be much greater than many believe.
William Gray is of the opinion that a weaker MOC is promoting warmer global temp.
Dr. Gray’s opinion.
Explanation #2 can be explained by the multi-decadal and multi-century variations in the globe’s deep ocean circulations (or Meridional Overturning Circulation or MOC) which are primarily driven by space and time variations of oceanic salinity. Salinity changes occur in ocean areas where there are long period differences in surface evaporation minus precipitation. This is especially the situation of the Atlantic where ocean evaporation is 10-20 percent greater than precipitation. Salinity driven ocean changes bring about alterations in the strength of the Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline Circulation (THC), and through Pacific basin upwelling response variations to variation in the Pacific multi-decadal oscillation (PDO) as well. There is also salinity driven ocean subsidence around the Antarctic continent. All these factors influence the strength of the MOC.
Most of the globe’s last century weak global warming has, in my view, been a consequence of a modest slowdown of the global oceans MOC. This last century long MOC slowdown is also detected in an associated weak increase (in milliseconds) in the earth’s rate of rotation.
The sun’s visible light and long wave UV light intensity will determine sea surface ocean temperatures going forward. Energy at these wavelengths is the ONLY energy that can penetrate the surface water of the ocean to any appreciable depth.
A follow up post focusing on oscillations:
Even today, after many years of study by highly intelligent people, the factors are murky enough that coupled ocean-atmospheric models still lack skill to forecast the patterns. And so, in 2015, we find advocates for reducing use of fossil fuels hoping and praying for a warm water blob in the Northern Pacific to intensify or endure so that the average global temperature will trend higher than last year.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/dynamic-duo-the-ocean-air-partnership/
Ron Clutz says: May 12, 2015 at 2:40 am
“A follow up post focusing on oscillations:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/dynamic-duo-the-ocean-air-partnership/”
Ron,
I read your article. I think you over emphasize the effect of ocean evaporation. Yes it is huge in the tropics but most of that dumps precipitation only on the tropical rainforest with little traveling far north or south. Wide spread WV production is from the boreal forest of Canada and Russia. This provides most of the precipitation for the top half of the NH.
However the largest part of the transfer of Solar radiative energy to space is from the diurnal conversion of “atmospheric condensate” to WV via insolation and the conversion of WV back to nightime condensate providing all the power for EMR exitance to space. The surface need not be involved in this transfer.
Net absorption of solar radiation is maintained at lately about 237 W / m ^ 2. This is about 3 W / m ^ 2 less than the reported average of 240 W / m ^ 2.
Click graf.
Can be seen what great is the importance of the oceans in the south, when it comes to the real absorption of solar radiation.
ren says: May 11, 2015 at 7:42 pm
“Czy (englitch “or”) Janoschka it must (can) be related to an increase in air ionization (changes in solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field) and with changes TSI, which, as I showed above, may be much greater than many believe.”
Indeed, I can temporally accept vast electromotive, and magneto motive forces that earthlings do not understand because of the vast scale involved 🙂
How can Dr. Gray claim that atmospheric gaseous CO2 and H2O absorb radiative exit flux with no evidence of such? The opposing “radiance” of these gasses do limit the surface flux. They also replace that exit flux with a much better emitter, the atmosphere. For any gas to absorb outgoing flux that gas must be at a temperature lower than that required for radiative equilibrium.
Because of convection and conversion of latent heat all levels of this atmosphere have temperatures above such radiative equilibrium. This results in the value of radiative exit flux to accumulate all the way to 120 km. As shown in Dr. Gray’s presentation the Cb clouds have tall vertical structure and are comprised partially of H2O condensate. Such structure must generate exit flux in the 8-14 micron window and is not limited to a PI steradian greater solid angle of its horizontal area, as is the surface.
Dr. Gray considers the inversion of effects on upper tropospheric WV the largest flaw in global climate models among many. It is the fatally incorrect use of the Line by line radiative transmission model (LBLRTM)! This model will correctly calculate optical depth or emissivity of any air column in any frequency band from 0.2 to 200 microns. Such a model cannot correctly calculate the attenuation of any incident radiative flux however without first determining if that air will increase its sensible or latent heat in doing so! -will-
ren says: May 12, 2015 at 6:20 am
“Can be seen what great is the importance of the oceans in the south, when it comes to the real absorption of solar radiation.”
Ren,
Oceans have lower specific absorptivity at shorter wavelengths. But the ocean remain opaque. It does not mater if the Watts are absorbed in mm or km. They are absorbed if accepted. Please check the best estimates for spectral absorptivity/emissivity of both land and ocean as a function of angle of incidence. You will be surprised at how reflective most things get at AOI greater than 55 degrees, at every wavelength. The short wavelengths reflect at much lower AOI. :-).
“We currently have an uninterrupted long observation series of the TSI S☉ since 1978, directly measured by several special space instruments. The amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic
variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% and it has been gradually decreasing since the beginning of 1990s.The 11-year cyclic variations of the TSI occur in relation to the component of its 2-century variation, which was for the first time revealed by us in 2005.”
Can be compared. TSI for 3 months was below 1362 W / m ^ 2 and falls off.
Consequently, the amount of solar energy supplied to the Earth is directly linked to the value of solar radius, in the other words to the radiating area of our star. Cyclic variations of the TSI occur due to the oscillations of solar radius with amplitude up to 130 km within a “short” 11-year cycle and up to 300 km within a Grand 2-century cycle.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
“Many studies have shown that the Sun’s surface magnetic flux, in the form of sunspots and faculae, can explain TSI variation on rotational time scales of days and weeks (Willson et al. 1981; Foukal & Lean 1986; Fligge et al. 2000) and cyclical periods covering the solar cycle (Lean et al. 1998; Wenzler et al. 2006). All three TSI composites suggest that the Sun undergoes some measure of inter-cycle, secular variability, but all three are in disagreement as to the magnitude and direction of this change. Some indices, e.g. open solar flux (Lockwood et al. 2010), show that the minimum of 2008 saw the largest significant secular change of the satellite era and this is reflected in the PMOD composite by a decline in TSI relative to the minima of 1996 and 1986. Although the decline in TSI between 1996 and 2008 is small, estimated to be ~0.2 W m-2 (Fröhlich 2009), the importance of this small change lies in the accumulated change over centuries. It has been suggested that the Sun may be entering a grand minimum state, though there is still some debate on this (Feynman & Ruzmaikin 2011; Solanki & Krivova 2011).”
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2012/05/aa18702-11/aa18702-11.html
Will Janoschka
Will Janoschka
Almost the entire UV radiation remains above the tropopause. EUV in the thermosphere, the other in the stratosphere. This is shown at the tropopause.
ren says: May 12, 2015 at 8:15 am
“We currently have an uninterrupted long observation series of the TSI S☉ since 1978, directly measured by several special space instruments. The amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic
variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% and it has been gradually decreasing since the beginning of 1990s.The 11-year cyclic variations of the TSI occur in relation to the component of its 2-century variation, which was for the first time revealed by us in 2005.”
Ren,
Please be much more careful here! The so called TSI is the poorly measured wideband irradiance (radiance integrated over the solid angle of the sun). I am very glad that such measurements have been carefully measured. This gives much understanding to what the Sun may be doing to its own radiative exitance in each direction.
Such measurement never gives any clue as to how much Solar radiant power is transferred to this Earth or its atmosphere! How much of this spectral potential is ever transferred to this surface or atmosphere is never the province of 5th graders. Try again with competent engineers! Get wee results!~ :-).
Will Janoschka
“All three TSI composites suggest that the Sun undergoes some measure of inter-cycle, secular variability, but all three are in disagreement as to the magnitude and direction of this change.”
ren says: May 12, 2015 at 9:12 am
“Will Janoschka Almost the entire UV radiation remains above the tropopause. EUV in the thermosphere, the other in the stratosphere. This is shown at the tropopause. ”
Indeed, this is all done well away from any earthling slaves, or their Masters!
ren says:May 12, 2015 at 9:46 am
Will Janoschka “All three TSI composites suggest that the Sun undergoes some measure of inter-cycle, secular variability, but all three are in disagreement as to the magnitude and direction of this change.”
OK!, (dronk), 🙂
Will, about the water, I was trusting in estimates of water vapor from such sources as this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water/
They say transpiration from plants gives about 10%, the rest is evaporation; 87% from the oceans, 3% from rivers, lakes, etc. Of course there are other processes in the atmosphere once the water vapor is present.
Also, on the transport of rain from ocean to land, I referenced A.M. Makarieva et al in a post here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/here-comes-the-rain-again/
TSI
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/pmod/from:1900
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1900