In Measuring Climate Sensitivity – Part One we saw that there can be potential problems in attempting to measure the parameter called “climate sensitivity”.
Using a simple model Spencer & Braswell (2008) had demonstrated that even when the value of “climate sensitivity” is constant and known, measurement of it can be obscured for a number of reasons.
The simple model was a “slab model” of the ocean with a top of atmosphere imbalance in radiation.
Murphy & Forster (2010) criticized Spencer & Braswell for a few reasons including the value chosen for the depth of this ocean mixed layer. As the mixed layer depth increases the climate sensitivity measurement problems are greatly reduced.
First, we will consider the mixed layer in the context of that simple model. Then we will consider what it means in real life.
The Simple Model of Climate Sensitivity
The simple model used by Spencer & Braswell has a “mixed ocean layer” of depth 50m.
In the model the mixed layer is where all of the imbalance in top of atmosphere radiation gets absorbed.
The idea in the simple model is that the energy absorbed from the top of atmosphere gets mixed into the top layer of the ocean very quickly. In reality, as we will see, there isn’t such a thing as one layer but it is a handy approximation.
Murphy & Forster commented:
For the heat capacity parameter c, SB08 use the heat capacity of a 50-m ocean mixed layer. This is too shallow to be realistic.
Because heat slowly penetrates deeper into the ocean, an appropriate depth for heat capacity depends on the length of the period over which Eq. (1) is being applied (Watterson 2000; Held et al. 2010).
For 80-yr global climate model runs, Gregory (2000) derived an optimum mixed layer depth of 150 m. Watterson (2000) found an initial global heat capacity equivalent to a mixed layer of 200 m and larger values for longer simulations.
Held et al. (2010) found an initial time constant τ = c/α of about four yr in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory global climate model. Schwartz (2007) used historical data to estimate a globally averaged mixed layer depth of 150 m, or 106 m if the earth were only ocean.
The idea is an attempt to keep the simplicity of one mixed layer for the model, but increase the depth of this mixed layer for longer time periods.
There is always a point where models – simplified versions of the real world – start to break down. This might be the case here.
The initial model was of a mixed layer of ocean, all at the same temperature because the layer is well-mixed – and with some random movement of heat between this mixed layer and the ocean depths. In a more realistic scenario, more heat flows into the deeper ocean as the length of time increases.
What Murphy & Forster are proposing is to keep the simple model and “account” for the ever increasing heat flow into the deeper ocean by using a depth of the mixed layer that is dependent on the time period.
If we do this perhaps the model will work, perhaps it won’t. By “work” we mean provide results that tell us something useful about the real world.
So I thought I would introduce some more realism (complexity) into the model and see what happened. This involves a bit of a journey.
Real Life Ocean Mixed Layer
Water is a very bad conductor of heat – as are plastic and other insulators. Good conductors of heat include metals.
However, in the ocean and the atmosphere conduction is not the primary heat transfer mechanism. It isn’t even significant. Instead, in the ocean it is convection – the bulk movement of fluids – that moves heat. Think of it like this – if you move a “parcel” of water, the heat in that parcel moves with it.
Let’s take a look at the temperature profile at the top of the ocean. Here the first graph shows temperature:
Note that the successive plots are not at higher and higher temperatures – they are just artificially separated to make the results easier to see. During the afternoon the sun heats the top of the ocean. As a result we get a temperature gradient where the surface is hotter than a few meters down. At night and early morning the temperature gradient disappears. (No temperature gradient means that the water is all at the same temperature)
Why is this?
Once the sun sets the ocean surface cools rapidly via radiation and convection to the atmosphere. The result is colder water, which is heavier. Heavier water sinks, so the ocean gets mixed. This same effect takes place on a larger scale for seasonal changes in temperature.
And the top of the ocean is also well mixed due to being stirred by the wind.
A comment from de Boyer Montegut and his coauthors (2004):
A striking and nearly universal feature of the open ocean is the surface mixed layer within which salinity, temperature, and density are almost vertically uniform. This oceanic mixed layer is the manifestation of the vigorous turbulent mixing processes which are active in the upper ocean.
Here is a summary graphic from the excellent Marshall & Plumb:
There’s more on this subject in Does Back-Radiation “Heat” the Ocean? – Part Three.
How Deep is the Ocean Mixed Layer?
This is not a simple question. Partly it is a measurement problem, and partly there isn’t a sharp demarcation between the ocean mixed layer and the deeper ocean. Various researchers have made an effort to map it out.
Here is a global overview, again from Marshall & Plumb:
You can see that the deeper mixed layers occur in the higher latitudes.
Comment from de Boyer Montegut:
The main temporal variabilities of the MLD [mixed layer depth] are directly linked to the many processes occurring in the mixed layer (surface forcing, lateral advection, internal waves, etc), ranging from diurnal [Brainerd and Gregg, 1995] to interannual variability, including seasonal and intraseasonal variability [e.g., Kara et al., 2003a; McCreary et al., 2001]. The spatial variability of the MLD is also very large.
The MLD can be less than 20 m in the summer hemisphere, while reaching more than 500 m in the winter hemisphere in subpolar latitudes [Monterey and Levitus, 1997].
Here is a more complete map by month. Readers probably have many questions about methodology and I recommend reading the free paper:
Figure 5 – Click for a larger image
Seeing this map definitely had me wondering about the challenge of measuring climate sensitivity. Spencer & Braswell had used 50m MLD to identify some climate sensitivity measurement problems. Murphy & Forster had reproduced their results with a much deeper MLD to demonstrate that the problems went away.
But what happens if instead we retest the basic model using the actual MLD which varies significantly by month and by latitude?
So instead of “one slab of ocean” at MLD = choose your value, we break up the globe into regions, have different values in each region each month and see what happens to climate sensitivity problems.
By the way, I also attempted to calculate the global annual (area weighted) average of MLD from the maps above, by eye. I also emailed the author of the paper to get some measurement details but no response.
My estimate of the data in this paper was a global annual area weighted average of 62 meters.
Trying Simple Models with Varying MLD
I updated the Matlab program from Measuring Climate Sensitivity – Part One. The globe is now broken up into 30º latitude bands, with the potential for a different value of mixed layer depth for each month of the year.
I created a number of different profiles:
Depth Type 0 – constant with month and latitude, as in the original article
Type 1 – using the values from de Boyer’s paper, as best as can be estimated from looking at the monthly maps.
Type 2 – no change each month, with scaling of 60ºN-90ºN = 100x the value for 0ºN – 30ºN, and 30ºN – 60ºN = 10x the value for 0ºN – 30ºN – similarly for the southern hemisphere.
Type 3 – alternating each month between Type 2 and its inverse, i.e., scaling of 0ºN – 30ºN = 100x the value for 60ºN-90ºN and 30ºN – 60ºN = 10x the value for 60ºN-90ºN.
Type 4 – no variation by latitude, but month 1 = 1000x month 4, month 2 = 100x month 4, month 3 = 10x month 4, repeating 3 times per year.
In each case the global annual (area weighted) average = 62m.
Essentially types 2-4 are aimed at creating extreme situations.
Here are some results (review the original article for some of the notation), recalling that the actual climate sensitivity, λ = 3.0:
Figure 7 – as figure 6 without 30-day averaging
What’s the message from these results?
In essence, type 0 (the original) and type 1 (using actual MLDs vs latitude and month from de Boyer’s paper) are quite similar – but not exactly the same.
However, if we start varying the MLD by latitude and month in a more extreme way the results come out very differently – even though the global average MLD is the same in each case.
This demonstrates that the temporal and area variation of MLD can have a significant effect and modeling the ocean as one slab – for the purposes of this enterprise – may be risky.
We haven’t considered the effect of non-linearity in these simple models. That is, what about interactions between different regions and months. If we created a yet more complex model where heat flowed between regions dependent on the relative depths of the mixed layers what would we find?
Losing the Plot?
Now, in case anyone has lost the plot by this stage – and it’s possible that I have – don’t get confused into thinking that we are evaluating GCM’s and gosh aren’t they simplistic.. No, GCM’s have very sophisticated modeling.
What we have been doing is tracing a path that started with a paper by Spencer & Braswell. This paper used a very simple model to show that with some random daily fluctuations in top of atmosphere radiative flux, perhaps due to clouds, the measurement of climate sensitivity doesn’t match the actual climate sensitivity.
We can do this in a model – prescribe a value and then test whether we can measure it. This is where this simple model came in. It isn’t a GCM.
However, Murphy & Forster came along and said if you use a deeper mixed ocean layer (which they claim is justified) then the measurement of climate sensitivity does more or less match the actual climate sensitivity (they also had comment on the values chosen for radiative flux anomalies, a subject for another day).
What struck me was that the test model needs some significant improvement to be able to assess whether or not climate sensitivity can be measured. And this is with the caveat – if climate sensitivity is a constant.
The Next Phase – More Realistic Ocean Model
As Murphy & Forster have pointed out, the longer the time period, the more heat is “injected” into the deeper ocean from the mixed layer.
So a better model would capture this better than just creating a deeper mixed layer for a longer time. Modeling true global ocean convection is an impossible task.
As a recap, conducted heat flow:
q” = k.ΔT/d
where q” = heat flow per unit area, k = conductivity, ΔT = temperature difference, and d = depth of layer
Take a look at Heat Transfer Basics – Part Zero for more on these basics.
For water, k = 0.6 W/m².K. So, as an example, if we have a 10ºC temperature difference across 1 km depth of water, q” = 0.006 W/m². This is tiny. Heat flow via conduction is insignificant. Convection is what moves heat in the ocean.
Many researchers have measured and estimated vertical heat flow in the ocean to come up with a value for vertical eddy diffusivity. This allows us to make some rough estimates of vertical heat flow via convection.
In the next version of the Matlab program (“in press”) the ocean is modeled with different eddy diffusivities below the mixed ocean layer to see what happens to the measurement of climate sensitivity. So far, the model comes up with wildly varying results when the eddy diffusivity is low, i.e., heat cannot easily move into the ocean depths. And it comes up with normal results when the eddy diffusivity is high, i.e., heat moves relatively quickly into the ocean depths.
Due to shortness of time, this problem has not yet been resolved. More in due course.
This article is already long enough, so the next part will cover the estimated values for eddy diffusivity because it’s an interesting subject
Regular readers of this blog understand that navigating to any kind of conclusion takes some time on my part. And that’s when the subject is well understood. I’m finding that the signposts on the journey to measuring climate sensitivity are confusing and hard to read.
And that said, this article hasn’t shed any more light on the measurement of climate sensitivity. Instead, we have reviewed more ways in which measurements of it might be wrong. But not conclusively.
Next up we will take a detour into eddy diffusivity, hoping in the meantime that the Matlab model problems can be resolved. Finally a more accurate model incorporating eddy diffusivity to model vertical heat flow in the ocean will show us whether or not climate sensitivity can be accurately measured.
Articles in this Series
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration, Spencer & Braswell, Journal of Climate (2008)
On the accuracy of deriving climate feedback parameters from correlations between surface temperature and outgoing radiation, Murphy & Forster, Journal of Climate (2010)
Observation of large diurnal warming events in the near-surface layer of the western equatorial Pacific warm pool, Soloviev & Lukas, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers (1997)
Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics: An Introductory Text, Marshall & Plumb, Elsevier Academic Press (2008)
Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology, de Boyer Montegut et al, JGR (2004)