Bill Illis says:
February 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm

The Trade Winds are directly related to the temperature of the equatorial Pacific in the upper 300 metres.

If it is colder in the East Pacific then there is little convection and little cloud and little rain in the eastern 2/3rds of the Pacific (almost none in fact). If the West is warmer, then there is more convection there and more rain and so on. So a cold East, warm West and the Trade Winds then blow stronger, which draws up even more cold water from below and then the winds blow even stronger and it becomes a self-reinforcing oscillation.

Eventually all the colder water is blown to the West, which pushes the warm water down and it recirculates back underneath in the Equatorial Pacific UnderCurrent which then eventually surfaces in the East at the Galapagos Islands. Now we have a warm East and a cold West and opposite convection cells. The Trade Winds then slow down and the warm water remains at the surface and even sloshes back to the East and viola, an El Nino.

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/6401/ensoeuotavs175wtradewin.png

A self-reinforcing oscillation (up to a limit at which time it reverses and becomes self-reinforcing oscillation in the other direction).

The El Nino (which is now at 150 metres depth and between 135E and 160W) is coming sometime.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
*************************************************************
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#comment-895707

The second link is to an animation of the status of the coming El Nino centred (warmest) between PNG and Nauru with a face at the Line Islands below Hawaii.

Fine. But what will the intensity of it be? And what are the magnifying factors? Remember that there was no El Nino after the last La Nina, ENSO just stayed negative and we’ve had a double-dip La Nina.

Also the warmest water is only at 150m so it’s a surface phenomenon as JJ points out last comment above. The big Warmist bogyman (your nightmare) is OHC at 700 – 2000m building up globally somewhere (I’m not saying it isn’t but it’s not anthropogenic in origin anyway).

So where exactly is the AGW scare-story in either surface or mid-ocean?

You certainly wouldn’t be the only warmer/lukewarmer there (see Pierre-Normand and R. Gates below) and you may even score a point or two.

The relevant and topical post would be ‘Sea level still not cooperating with predictions’. I suggest a reply to phlogiston:-

phlogiston says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm

“ENSO fluctuations can be seen as noise in the overall upward trend in sea level rise over the past few decades.”

Warmistas really hate the ENSO. Why? Because it points to the non-survivability of simplistic back-of-envelope CO2 dogma in the real, complex-chaotic world. Bob Tisdale has shown – and this is not a controversial opinion in oceanography – that ENSO is the dominant mechanism determining global climatic variations on the scale of decades. Certain large ENSO evens are associated with step changes in global temperature which Bob Tisdale has further shown are the ONLY source of significant climate change in recent decades.

So dismissing ENSO as “noise” really is burying your head in the sand and outright denial of the complex processes of the real world. I love the ENSO. It is real and it is big, it is a real nonlinear oscillator, its been around a long time and its not going to go away.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/#comment-895154

And/or Werner Brozek:-

Werner Brozek says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:57 am

Thank you again Pierre-Normand and R. Gates.
From
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/october-to-december-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/

“The Global OHC data through December 2011 is shown in Figure 6. Even with the recent correction and uptick in the two quarters of this year, Global Ocean Heat Content continues to be remarkably flat since 2003″

The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct. Time will tell.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/#comment-895401

And/or phlogiston again

phlogiston says:
February 17, 2012 at 8:57 am

Werner Brozek says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:57 am
Thank you again Pierre-Normand and R. Gates.

The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct. Time will tell.

This waiting for el Nino which has been going on for several years now, has a certain “waiting for Godot” ring to it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/#comment-895434

Then JJ

JJ says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Werner Brozek says:

The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct.

El Nino is a surface phenomenon, and it is localized to a specific area of the Tropical Pacific. Global OHC below 700m is irrelevant. We know that the 0-700m in this area is currently not recharging the heat given up in the last El Nino, as it typically would during a La Nina. Prayers for a huge El Nino based on mid depth ocean warmth would seem to rest on a bunch of heat sitting below 700m in that area of the eastern Pacific, and a mechanism to get it up top in a way that raises near surface temps.

Is it there? If so, how did it get there?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/#comment-895623

And what are the El Nino “triggers”?

I’m following the thread so I might see your input?

Good point, neither am I. TF&K neglect geothermal surface heat flux (probably what I was thinking) but I think D&D09 uses 47 TW, or about 0.09 W/m2.

Douglass and Knox 2009 use similar:-

3.3. Flux from the interior of the earth
Pollack et al. [11] studied 24,774 heat flow measurements at 20,201 worldwide sites. They determined a global mean heat flux of 87±2.0 mW/m2

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CDouglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

Pollack, Hurter and Johnson 1993 (pre-ARGO):-

ESTIMATE OF GLOBAL HEAT LOSS

We sum separately the contributions of the oceanic
and continental terrains and calculate a mean heat flow
for oceans and continents of 101 +__ 2.2 and 65 – 1.6
mW m- 2, respectivelyT.h esev alues,w henw eighted
by their respective areas, yield a mean global heat flow
of 87 – 2.0 mW m -2, or a global heat loss of 44.2 x
10•12 W. The uncertaintierse presenat reallyw eighted
standard errors of the mean. Of this heat loss, 70% is
lost in the oceans and 30% from the continents

http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~rob/MHF/Papers/Pollack_Hurter_Johnson_RG1993.pdf

Note in Figure 4 that global heat flow is NOT uniform and “ESTIMATE” = wild ass guess (WAG).

So by their “estimate” (unchanged since 1993), into the ocean goes 87 – 2.0 mW m -2 * 0.7 = 61 mW m -2 or 0.06 W m -2 and 44.2 x 10•12 W * 0.7 = 31 x 10•12 or 31TW.

Don’t you think that might be a bit low Nick? I do and so do a growing number of others:-

Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux

Written by Joseph A Olson, PE | 25 April 2011

Freed from the ridiculous assumptions about Earth’s fission rate, we are now able to debate the causes of the periodic fluctuations in fission that are the root cause of the El Nino/La Nina effect. There is an obvious solar cycle trigger to these fission induced ocean temperature changes.

http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/135-earths-missing-geothermal-flux

The first hydrothermal vent was discovered in 1877, they are still being discovered and no-one knows yet the venting changes (“forcing” as the IPCC puts it) that occur over time i.e. the science is NOT settled.

“Do you really think AJStrata’s blog post which claims to overturn a well understood physical theory”

Huh? What “well understood physical theory”?. And didn’t you read the screed of other posts up-thread?

Also another screed here now (time has moved on a bit Nick):-

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/02/ive-been-busy/#comment-80391

If you still think El Nino is a “well understood physical theory” after reading that screed then I really am not interested in continuing this conversation.

Do you really think AJStrata’s blog post which claims to overturn a well understood physical theory credible? Maybe you could put on your sceptics hat for a moment and see if you can find a few of the glaring problems with his “Analysis”. I’m happy to give you some hints but as a sceptic I’m sure you would relish the challenge.

A compendium of recent studies of the Kermadec Trench:-

‘The Kermadec volcanic region: An overview of geological discoveries from the last decade’
http://www.thekermadecs.org/symposium/abstracts

Includes:

‘Submarine massive sulfide mineralization and hydrothermal activity along the Kermadec Arc, the world’s most hydrothermally active’

Matthew I. Leybourne,
GNS Science, Lower Hutt

Martin Hovland says:
February 15, 2012 at 7:28 am

Megaplumes from the Carnegie Ridge cause El Niños?

In 1988 we published a book on seabed features dealing with fluids leaking up from the sub-seafloor, including so-called hydrothermal vents. By 1988, the first ‘Megaplume’ had been observed in the East Pacific Ocean (see Anderson, 1987), over the Juan de Fuca spreading ridge. A large plume of anomalously warm water was discovered measuring 19 km across and about 1 km in height (above the seafloor).The top of the plume was about 1.3 km below the ocean surface. The enormous excess heat in the plume was estimated to represent about 10 billion kWh of energy. The venting, which terminated after about 10 days, was found to be equivalent to the yearly output from 2000 small (normal) hydrothermal vents. Based on this observation, we speculated that there may be a close link between mantle convection, and/or the subduction of heated ocean crust slabs, and regional ocean surface warming (Hovland and Judd, 1988, p. 258),.

Thus, the main driver for for the El Niño would be hot water contained in the a-seismic Carnegie Ridge, located between Galapagos and mainland Equador. The warm water mass would be released as a 10-fold Megaplume due to a regional earthquake or some tectonic disruption. The erratic nature of the El Niño is also a reason supporting this hypothesis.

References:
- Anderson, I., 1987. ‘Megaplumes’ tips the balance in the oceans. New Scientist, 112, 1540/1541, 24.
- Hovland, M., Judd, A.G., 1988. Seabed pockmarks and seepages: Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment. Graham and Trotman, London, 295 pp.

For further information on Megaplumes see also:
- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html
- http://discovermagazine.com/1999/mar/megaplumes
- http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210023-Ocean-Warming-Not-Global-Warming-Hydrothermal-Megaplume-Found-in-Indian-Ocean

And on the Carnegie Ridge:
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.T13D0506D
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X72900209

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#comment-893260

Argo Data Confirms El Niño/La Niña Caused By Underwater Volcanoes

Published by AJStrata

Last week I postulated [Linked] that the El Niño/La Niña effect was not due to solar or atmospheric conditions, but actually caused by underwater volcanic activity along ocean ridges off the West coast of South America. To see whether my theory held water I decided to look into the Argo Float data to see if there it was showing a warm upwelling of water in this region. I apparently was correct.

[...]

It is infeasible that El Niño can arise from atmosphere and sun alone by warming this mass of water. Neither air temp or solar radiance change enough to cause this phenomena.

At this site you can watch animation of nearly 5 years of Argo data on the tropical region of the Pacific Ocean. It is fascinating and proves my earlier conclusion that the warm waters of El Niño arise from the eastern pacific and travel west – not the reverse as is the current (now defunct) theory

[...]

Now some may ask why didn’t Argos detect the upwelling deeper (1000m)? The answer is in fluid dynamics. The hot spot is very narrow above whatever thermal vents are the source of this warming. The Argo floats are not very dense in this region. So the warm column of water upwelling has to spread out as it rises, making it more likely to be detected by the Argos floats. By the time it hits the surface the warm water really spreads out over top of the cooler layers below.

As this March 2009 surface image shows there are two upwellings in the area, but the one off Costa Rica is missed at the lower depths (again likely due to the density of sensors being so low in this area). And there appears to be a 3rd upwelling off the coast of Peru.

The activity of Nicaragua and Costa Rica is right along the Cocos Plate. The Peruvian region I highlighted in the previous post and is linked to the Pacific Rise. Higher volcanic activity in these areas clearly cause more warm water to rise and heat the surface, creating the conditions for El Niño. Lower activity allows the cooler currents to dominate, bringing on La Niña.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18084

Also at WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#more-56673

But if there’s no anthropogenic “determination” (as NASA put’s it), who cares about ocean heat?

And with SST and SSL both falling, there’s even less to care about.

Relax, Nick. Go for a swim.

As for the mechanism for heat transfer into the ocean depths the thermohaline circulation you describe is perfectly adequate to explain raising temperatures in the deep ocean without resorting to salinity differences.

Consider for example what happens to existing thermohaline circulation when the surface temperature is increased and less cold water surface water sinks to the bottom. The result is more (relatively) warm water remaining in the ocean depths, resulting in increasing temperatures even though no warm water is descending. Temperatures are increasing because less cold water is descending.

Richard T,
You seems to think that no heat is being accumulated in the ocean because surface temperatures have not significantly increased over the last few years however as Richard C points out the ocean depths are continuing to warm so why do you consider only SST to be relevant?

SkS even shows SSTs (Tsfc) peaked (plateaued) around 2005 then falling thereafter in Fig 4.

In regard to the “questions”, if you are having a mental block (you haven’t responded so I assume so) I think I can help out.

1) Ques: What proportion of ocean heating in Joules is anthropogenic (if any)?

Ans: from the NOAA study S. Levitus, J.L. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and Cathy Stephens, 2000. “Warming of the world ocean,” the “bottom line” conclusions claimed by the study are these:-

(1) The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.

(2) There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.

2) Ques: If you do ascribe a figure for 1), what is the mechanism for it?

No answer possible if there’s “no determination” but the supposed mechanism is as Dr. Robert E. Stevenson puts it:-

….modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

It does not happen!

The primary physical factor in determining the density of sea water is the temperature (Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1943). In the open ocean, top or bottom, salinity differences are measured in a few parts per thousand. Thermohaline circulation takes place where the surface waters become colder than the waters beneath. The large vertical movements occur in polar seas, where accelerated radiation makes the surface waters greatly colder than the deeper waters.

In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9°C, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying “thermal lag” is going to take place. It is clear that there’ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter.

The claim Dr. Stevenson describes pertains to the halosteric (salinity) component of sea level change and thanks to NOAA NODC’s bodacious new Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content page we can look at 9. Comparison of Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

0-700 halosteric sea level fall since about 1987.

0-2000 halosteric sea level fall since about 1991.

Bad news for the modellers.

Unfortunately, not being au fait with things warmist, I can’t help with the bonus Hansen question “Bonus if you can provide us with Hansen’s anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism”.

I was kinda hoping you would come up with something for that Nick.