Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale,

As noted in the post October 2010 Update to NODC Ocean Heat Content Data, the National Oceanographic Data Center has updated itsOCEAN HEAT CONTENT (OHC) data. This is the dataset based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript

The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC. Refer to the gif animation, Figure 1, that shows the global OHC data from their June 2010 update (through March 2010) and from the most recent update and change (though June 2010). The revisions are considerable in many ocean basins. As described in their explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations. (Refer to the NOAA FAQ webpage What is an XBT?) Immediately following Figure 1 is a link to a graph that shows the difference between the two global datasets, with the June 2010 update subtracted from the September 2010 update.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vhsta8.jpg
Figure 1 – Global
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2qi07s0.jpg
#########################

Table 1 shows the OHC linear trends (in Gigajoules/Square Meter per Decade) for the global and hemispheric data and for the individual ocean basin subsets. Also shown are the differences (the data from the September 2010 update MINUS the data from the June 2010 update) and the percent change (difference divided by June 2010 update). Note: the June 2010 update included data through March 2010 and the September update/change included data through June 2010, but Table 1 only compares linear trends for the datasets through March 2010. As shown in Table 1, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. There was a minor increase in North Pacific trend (4%), while there were considerable drops in the linear trends of the South Atlantic (23%), South Pacific (17%) and the Southern Ocean (32%).
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zx5boi.jpg
Table 1

Figure 2 is the gif animation that shows the Southern Ocean OHC data (South of 60S) before and after the September 2010 changes. Prior to the mid-2000s and the introduction of ARGO buoys, the original data (through March 2010) simply appeared to be the climatology with some data added occasionally when it was available. The updated data seems to emphasize that appearance.
http://i54.tinypic.com/111sabn.jpg
Figure 2 – Southern Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/fuqalc.jpg
#########################

And there is good reason for that appearance. Like Sea Surface Temperature datasets based on buoys and ship sensors, there is very little Southern Hemisphere data, at all depths, prior to the ARGO buoys era. Figures 3 through 6 show the 3-month data distribution maps for January through March of 1955, 1975, 1995 and 2005, at depths of zero meters (surface), 250 meters, 500 meters and 700 meters. South of 60S there was little data even in 2005. The maps are available through the NODC Temperature data distribution figures webpage.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2a8orcp.jpg
Figure 3
##############
http://i55.tinypic.com/aes9lg.jpg
Figure 4
##############
http://i54.tinypic.com/x6gaig.jpg
Figure 5
##############
http://i52.tinypic.com/k9ax3.jpg
Figure 6
##############

THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ON PAST POSTS ABOUT NATURAL OHC VARIATIONS

The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations in data that should be attributable to natural variations. For example: The tropical Pacific OHC data still drops during major El Niño events and partially rebounds during most of the La Niña events that follow, Figure 7. The major upward shifts occur during significant La Niña events, which is the recharge/overcharge mode for the tropical Pacific OHC. This, and the similar impact on other ocean basins, was discussed in the post ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.
http://i52.tinypic.com/wbqt61.jpg
Figure 7

With the changes to the data, the OHC of the North Pacific north of 20N still drops from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, Figure 8, and then suddenly rises. This increase coincides with a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure. This was discussed in the post North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s.
http://i55.tinypic.com/v8o60i.jpg
Figure 8

The update/changes caused the OHC for most of the other basins to drop more than the North Atlantic OHC. Refer again to Table 1. This makes the contribution of the North Atlantic OHC to global OHC even greater. And much of the disproportionate rise in North Atlantic OHC is caused by Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), sea level pressure, and ENSO, as discussed in North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. One cell of the gif animation in Figure 9 compares global and North Atlantic OHC. The increase in North Atlantic OHC dwarfs the global rise. The second cell in Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade. Also note how sharply the North Atlantic OHC has dropped since 2005. The North Atlantic is a major contributor to the flattening of global data in recent years.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
Figure 9

GIF ANIMATIONS — BEFORE AND AFTER CHANGES

Figures 10 through 18 are gif animations that compare the NODC OHC data for the hemispheres and ocean basin subsets before and after the recent changes. I’ve also provided links to graphs of the differences, with the June 2010 data subtracted from the September 2010 data. They are provided without commentary.
http://i53.tinypic.com/aken3m.jpg
Figure 10 – Tropical Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34fo420.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/2zrks8x.jpg
Figure 11 – Northern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/22xonc.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2cy5vf5.jpg
Figure 12 – Southern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2vaim1u.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/r91v7d.jpg
Figure 13 – North Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/dm9tas.jpg
#########################
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lcwcir.jpg
Figure 14 – South Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2akfvaf.jpg
#########################
http://i56.tinypic.com/2n1t0fm.jpg
Figure 15 – Indian Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2gxfwvq.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dtdiyd.jpg
Figure 16 – North Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/nx553a.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2u4313m.jpg
Figure 17 – South Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/5yz3sw.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/n5lmp1.jpg
Figure 18 – Arctic Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2d7h387.jpg
#########################

SOURCE

The NODC OHC data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

(Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.)

About these ads
This entry was posted in AMO, ENSO, Oceans, PDO. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

  1. Enneagram says:

    Fantastic work!…..but..Is this “Climate Disruption” or just another cyclic and natural minimum we are in?. Just to avoid that the then Global Warmers who after became Climate Changers and now they present the phenomenon as “Climate Disruption” could surprise innocent people, which, btw, we are not, here at WUWT, thanks to real, and serious researchers like you.
    So we know it: Things are getting colder but it’s Ok, let’s buy more popcorn!

  2. richard verney says:

    Interesting post but it would be good to have a section setting out a summary, conclusions and implications.

  3. Sean says:

    What’s missing in all of this is error bars. According to a paper published in Nature that Josh Willis was a co-author on Lyman), prior to 2003, when the Argo Bouy network was deployed, the error bars on the total ocean heat content are enormous. They tighten up remarkably when you a more uniformly deployed network of Argo bouys. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html
    So the really good data shows TOC stable for 7 years and the sparser data taken prior to 2003 shows heating. My question is, are there graphs that show how the uncertainty changes with time for the TOC data and have these been updated as well?

  4. Brego says:

    Bob, what effect did these changes have on the linear trend for global OHC since 2003 (when the ARGO network came online)? My eyeball thinks it changed a flat or slightly negative trend and turned it into a positive trend. Is that right?

  5. Splendid work, thankyou!
    K.R. Frank

  6. MikeEE says:

    I just remembered, the 60’s were much colder than I thought…

  7. tallbloke says:

    Bob, thanks as always for your exhaustive and comprehensive overview of the data. It’s interesting to see that the big splice jump from XBT to ARGO seems to have been toned down in this latest revision. Interesting also that the general global shape of the ARGO section of the curve seems to agree most closely with Craig Loehle’s take on the data!

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/loehle_ocean_heat_content.png?w=510&h=322

  8. TinyCO2 says:

    Nice work as usual Bob.

    What’s this gonna do to the climate models? And if they’re so good, did they predict that there must be something wrong with the OHC? Or am I being silly because it’s another variable they don’t include?

  9. Ric Werme says:

    Typo here?

    Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade.

    My reading of the graph (and handy straight line trend equation) say that 0.72 should be 0.194.

    Interesting adjustments nonetheless.

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sean says: “What’s missing in all of this is error bars. ”

    The basin times series data through the NODC website…

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

    …is presented with standard errors. Link to the annual global/hemisphere page, for example:
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

    The data through the KNMI Climate Explorer, which I used for this post, is not provided with error data.

  11. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sean says: “So the really good data shows TOC stable for 7 years…”

    There have been numerous corrections to ARGO data ever since the floats were deployed. “Really good” is relative, but they are more numerous.

  12. Rob R says:

    I like the breakdown into oceanic subbasins. This means I can look at changes in sea surface temperatures, changes in ocean heat content, and changes in air temperature at a regional level. For instance in my own region (Western South Island, NZ and using the raw air temp data from the cliflo database) I note there has been minor almost trendless change in local air mean temperature, sea surface temperature, and ocean heat content since the 1950’s. This is about 60 years of minimal change. When is the supposed greenhouse-gas-caused temperature change supposed to hit down here? It is rather late to the party. Should I expect a step change event like the “Great North Pacific Transition” from the mid 1970’s? I suspect I shouldn’t hold my breath over this issue.

  13. mkelly says:

    “…from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.”

    During my 20+ years in the US Navy I must have been involved with hundreds of BT drops from P-3 Orion and S-3 Viking aircraft. We attempted to dropped one per flight. There were P-3 flying all around the world. I would assume these are available if historical data is wanted back to the 1950’s I would guess.

  14. Robinson says:

    On the assumption that oceanic heat is transferred to the atmosphere rather than the other way around, can we presume that this therefore explains almost all 20th century warming?

  15. Stephen Wilde says:

    The 1955 to June 2010 version seems to my eyeballs to show a clearer pattern as follows:

    i) A general fall in OHC from 1955 to 1970

    ii) a general rise from 1970 to 2000

    iii) A plateau and possible beginning of a fall from 2000 to date.

    I would just point out that the period of falling OHC was during a period that the jetstreams were more towards the equator, then the rising trend as they moved poleward and now possibly a falling trend once more now that the jets have shifted equatorward again.

    That meshes in with the albedo thread here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

    where it seems that albedo declined from the 80s as the jets moved poleward and started to recover again as the jets moved equatorward again from the late 90s.

    I take that as prima facie evidence supporting my proposition that it is the latitudinal position of the global cloud bands that most affects global albedo and the quantity of solar energy entering the oceans.

    A poleward shift reduces albedo so OHC rises. An equatorward shift increases albedo and OHC falls.

  16. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoops, in my previous post 1980 should read 1970.

  17. MartinGAtkins says:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ric Werme says: “Typo here?”

    Yup. Thanks for noting there was a mistake in that sentence, but it’s not the number you’ve noted later in your comment: the way I wrote it was confusing. I’ve changed it with corrections to the following at the co-post at my website:

    “The ‘Global’ linear trend (blue curve) is 0.072 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the ‘Global Minus North Atlantic’ data linear trend (green curve) drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade.”

    Thanks again.

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    Interesting that the Arctic Ocean graph shows a low point and trend change around 1980 whereas the global chart shows a low point and trend change around 1970.

    That suggests a ten year lag which approximately matches the period of time from the 1998 super El Nino to the peak summer melt in 2007.

  20. david says:

    The readers of this thread may be interested in a paper by Knox and myself showing that the trend of recent [since 2002] global ocean heat content is negative. Go to .

    David Douglass

    [reply] David, just type the url and wordpress will make the link live – RTmod

  21. Steve Koch says:

    So OHC has been dropping a bit since late 2004 instead of 2006.

    I highly recommend looking at this link (very clear explanation):
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/PDF/heat_content_differences.pdf

    These comments from the linked slides are interesting:
    • Many CTD/bottle data do not come to NODC within 3 months. Many do not come at all.
    • Changes to XBT data are usually replacement of real-time data with full profile delayed-mode data, including delayed-mode quality control.
    • Changes to Argo profiles are mostly pressure adjustments applied during delayed-mode quality control.

    I guess this means that the Argos sensors have an internal recording capability that has much more information than what is transmitted in quasi realtime. This recorded memory is presumably accessed relatively infrequently. When the recorded data is available, it permits post processing that improves the accuracy of temp records.

    I wonder what this means: “mean of five decadal climatologies to remove temporal bias”. Maybe Levitus 2009 explains it.

    Bob, did you do a post about the Levitus 2009 paper?

  22. commieBob says:

    I’m not sure what they are measuring here. It would nice if someone could tell us what the temperature change was in the water column.

    If I have it correctly, the heat content of the water column changed less than a tenth of one percent over the last sixty years. That would be about 0.3 degrees K. That doesn’t sound like much and it sounds to me like it is well within measurement error.

    If someone (more familiar with the physics) would do the math I would be grateful. I also agree with Sean; some error bars would be nice.

  23. tallbloke says:

    commieBob says:
    October 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    If I have it correctly, the heat content of the water column changed less than a tenth of one percent over the last sixty years. That would be about 0.3 degrees K. That doesn’t sound like much and it sounds to me like it is well within measurement error.

    The thing to remember is that two metres of ocean has around the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. So a 0.3K increase in the top 700 metres of ocean is a heck of a lot of additional energy. This additional energy must have come from additional insolation at the surface. This would be a function of a more active sun combined with a concomitant reduction in albedo – less clouds.

    This pretty much fits the high average solar output in the second half of the C20th, which was well above the long term average.

    There’s your global warming.

    If someone (more familiar with the physics) would do the math I would be grateful. I also agree with Sean; some error bars would be nice.

    I did the math. Using the rise in sea level due to thermal expansion, the energy gain in the 1993-2003 decade is equivalent to an extra 4W/m^2 – way more than co2 can do. Levitus et al mysteriously reduced the amount of extra energy by a large factor between their 2000 paper and their 2007 paper. I think it’s because they realised there was no way co2 could account for it, even if back radiation from the atmosphere could enter and heat the ocean, which it can’t.

  24. Bob Tisdale says:

    Steve Koch says: “Bob, did you do a post about the Levitus 2009 paper?”

    Nope. I’ve just included links to the paper when I’ve posted the data. Regarding “mean of five decadal climatologies to remove temporal bias”, refer to their paragraph 12 (page 3):
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

  25. Paolo M. says:

    Bob,
    what unit is GJ* m**-2?

    Have you (or Climate Explorer) divided the OHC by the ocean area?

  26. Morris Minor says:

    Thanks Bob,

    Could you please explain to me what the unit GJ/m2 means. I assume this is the energy in a column of water with surface area 1m2… but what depth is the column?

    I also assume the energy value is calculated from a temperature measurement.. is that correct? Thanks for the excellent work..

  27. Dr T G Watkins says:

    I agree with Richard Verney, a summary and commentary would be helpful for us simpletons (relatively).I always feel a bit stupid after reading Bob’s posts and I have followed links. I can understand why Bob presents the evidence (data) but refuses to be become embroiled in commentary but a little help from some of you clever guys would be appreciated.

  28. Bob Tisdale says:

    commieBob says: “It would nice if someone could tell us what the temperature change was in the water column.”

    In an earlier paper, Levitus et al (2005), they provide the rises in ocean temperature for 0-700 meters based on linear trends in their Table T1 as 0.118 deg C from 1955 to 2003. See page 17:
    ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf

  29. Bob Tisdale says:

    Morris Minor says: “Could you please explain to me what the unit GJ/m2 means. I assume this is the energy in a column of water with surface area 1m2… but what depth is the column?”

    Sorry that I didn’t note the depths as 0-700 meters in the post but they are included in many of the graphs. And yes, the GJ/m^2 is gigajoules (1 billion joules) per square meter.

  30. Bob Tisdale says:

    Paolo M. says: “what unit is GJ* m**-2?”

    Gigajoules per square meter.

    You asked, “Have you (or Climate Explorer) divided the OHC by the ocean area?”

    I did the dividing based on coordinates of ocean basins. The KNMI Climate Explorer allows users to download data based on global coordinates. And they present the data in a fomat that would work on that basis and that is Gigajoules per square meter.

  31. Change Is Universal says:

    Bob,

    I’m a fan of your posts because they contain lots of figures. Is it possible to compare OHC at different depths. For example, 50m intervals for the tropical Pacific. Would be nice even if we can only use Argo data…

    Cheers.

  32. paulhan says:

    Excellent analysis, Bob.
    It’s heartening to see adjustments go in the other direction now and again. Will this mean a re-evaluation by HadISST?

  33. bob says:

    Hmmm, I wonder what the ratio of mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is to the mass of water is the oceans. I mean, I’m just wondering. It’s really quite amazing that the reemission of photons from CO2 could warm the atmosphere, which, in turn warms the oceans (in such a short period of time). I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention in my heat transfer classes when they covered that. Boy, those must be some really energetic photons. Oh wait, no I have that wrong. It must be all about the “positive feedbacks” — you know, perpetual motion, cold fusion, that sort of thing.

  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde wrote, “I take that as prima facie evidence supporting my proposition that it is the latitudinal position of the global cloud bands that most affects global albedo and the quantity of solar energy entering the oceans.”

    Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?

  35. richcar 1225 says:

    How do the warmists explain the fact that the North Atlantic is accumulating heat at twice the rate of the rest of the world? Does the difference between the two rates represent the so called missing heat?

  36. EthicallyCivil says:

    So if the values have been correct downward, does that mean that there is more missing ocean heat than was thought prior? How much worse does this make the “missing heat” look?

  37. vukcevic says:

    Bob Tisdale says: October 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm
    vukcevic: Have I missed something on another thread? I’ve searched but couldn’t find any data or a description. What is the North Atlantic Precursor? What’s the source data and how do I duplicate the NAP data in this graph?

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

    Why does it only impact the North Atlantic and Central England Temperatures?

    Hi Bob,
    I looked into SSN, magnetic fields etc, but as you know ‘correlation is no causation’ is a big problem. Finally, I think I found a physical process which could give the answer.
    There is a similar process going on in the North Pacific, but data is not going as far back, working title for that one is ‘PDO generator’, not exactly appropriate, but will do.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm

    Why no details? See my post here

  38. Bob Tisdale says:

    Dr T G Watkins says: “I can understand why Bob presents the evidence (data) but refuses to be become embroiled in commentary but a little help from some of you clever guys would be appreciated.”

    Depending on the post, I do provide detailed commentary. And I’m happy to answer questions about topics I fail to cover in enough detail.

  39. John Kehr says:

    This is interesting information. My biggest curiosity isn’t the actual change in the values. The tiniest changes to measured temperatures will translate to changes in energy when large columns of water are involved.

    The ENSO cycle trigger very large changes in energy, but what powers those changes. Understanding the driving factor of the ocean oscillation would be very helpful. I have often wondered about how much energy is dissipated by an EL Nino. The energy transferred around evaporation and the warming of the atmosphere is significant.

    So much energy is on the move that the atmosphere is still warm almost a year later. These events are very interesting.

    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  40. Bob Tisdale says:

    paulhan says: “Will this mean a re-evaluation by HadISST?”

    The Hadley Centre is re-evaluating SST data for a replacement for HADSST2, and it would be called HADSST3. I think it was held up, though. I don’t know if that will have any impact of HADISST, which is a totally different beast and the best of the long-term datasets as far as I’m concerned.

  41. Scott Covert says:

    Thanks for the head exploding amount of data Bob!

    I’m going to have to read this three times to get the big picture.

    Thanks for the hard work.

  42. Neville says:

    I can only agree that Bob allows we slower members a chance to read and understand more info as it becomes available, BUT I wish a short summary and conclusion was part of the package.

    Perhaps Tall bloke or some one else could do the honours?

  43. Bob Tisdale says:

    Change Is Universal says: “Is it possible to compare OHC at different depths. For example, 50m intervals for the tropical Pacific. Would be nice even if we can only use Argo data…”

    That’s a tremendous amount of data to sort through, even with the depth intervals provided by the NODC. I doubt very much that NOAA will ever present it that way through their NOMADS system for that reason.

    For the ARGO data, there is software that allows users to sort through their data, but I haven’t looked into it. Also, it’s my understanding that the ARGO data they provide has not been corrected, and they’ve also stopped updating it, last update was sometime this summer. Refer to the “Global Marine Argo Atlas” webpage:

    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html

  44. Bob Tisdale says:

    vukcevic: Some day you’ll link the source of your North Atlantic Precursor and ‘PDO generator’, but based on your linked comment, it doesn’t look like it will be soon.

  45. Bob …..?????

    Any direct involvement in the work of the Pielke’s Family.

    (april >>>>september)

    thanks.

  46. david says:

    Here is the URL to the Knox/Douglass paper

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

    David Douglass

  47. Bob Tisdale says:

    Brego says: “Bob, what effect did these changes have on the linear trend for global OHC since 2003 (when the ARGO network came online)? My eyeball thinks it changed a flat or slightly negative trend and turned it into a positive trend. Is that right?”

    Yup, the dip in 2004 helps the postive trend. Let me see if I can dig up the old yearly data through 2009 and compare it to the present data.

  48. Enneagram says:

    vukcevic says:
    October 18, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Remarkable your new graph. Hope you will reveal the driver.

  49. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Paolo M. says:
    October 18, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    Bob,
    what unit is GJ* m**-2? Paolo; no mystery; the unit is GigaJoules per square metre; as in G, standard prefic for 10^9, J standard symbol for Joules (energy), and m standard unit for Metre (length), so it is energy per unit area.

    rather simple actually.

  50. Bob Tisdale says:

    Brego: As a follow up, the following graph shows the short-term OHC trends (2003 to 2008 for original paper and 2003 to 2009 for the Jan 2010 and Sept 2010 corrections.) The dip in 2004 increases the trend a little in the most recent update, but it still is far less than the trend in the original paper:

  51. Bob Tisdale says:

    Fernando (in Brazil) says: “Any direct involvement in the work of the Pielke’s Family.”

    In what way would the Pielkes have been involved?

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.”

    I second that. KNMI Climate Explorer is a very important website.

  53. Bob Tisdale says:

    Neville says: “I can only agree that Bob allows we slower members a chance to read and understand more info as it becomes available, BUT I wish a short summary and conclusion was part of the package.”

    A cut-and-paste summary:

    1, the National Oceanographic Data Center has updated itsOCEAN HEAT CONTENT (OHC) data.

    2, The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC.

    3, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. And the linear trend globally dropped about 9%.

    4, The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations…that should be attributable to natural variations.

    Neville, Dr T G Watkins, and Richard Verney: I’ll try to include summaries in future posts.

  54. Barry Day says:

    This is one of the most interesting and well researched posts at WUWT , thanks Bob T,I would like to hear your thoughts on how much or what percentage,Earth’s core heat from >”increased” 1 km), implying that ~24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered. .(END QUOTE)

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029874.shtml

    ———————————-
    Three million underwater volcanoes

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm

    ———————————-
    Global freshwater not showing an upward trend,shows it is not greenhouse related.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml

    ———————————-
    Seismic activity FIVE TIMES what it was twenty years ago.

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=91&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=e74f2b44346969a76f0b812c3fe4d57c

    ———————————-
    Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218

    ———————————-
    Cumulative moment release of earthquakes in the Harvard CMT catalog

    http://www.iris.iris.edu/sumatra/moment_second.htm

    ———————————-
    Long term Seismic activity trend
    Monthly number of volcanic earthquakes at Nyamuragira, 1960-92

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0203-02=&volpage=var

    ———————————-
    VOLCANOS COMBINED DAYS OF ACTIVITY INCREASE

    ———————————-
    Increased tectonic activity

    http://www.nov55.com/volcan.html

  55. George E. Smith says:

    “”” bob says:
    October 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    Hmmm, I wonder what the ratio of mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is to the mass of water is the oceans. I mean, I’m just wondering. It’s really quite amazing that the reemission of photons from CO2 could warm the atmosphere, which, in turn warms the oceans (in such a short period of time). I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention in my heat transfer classes when they covered that. Boy, those must be some really energetic photons. Oh wait, no I have that wrong. It must be all about the “positive feedbacks” — you know, perpetual motion, cold fusion, that sort of thing. “””

    Well bob it is a mistake to think of “reemission” of photons from CO2.

    The lifetime of the excited state of CO2 caused by the surface (or atmospheric) emitted LWIR photons captured by the CO2, is much longer than the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere; so the CO2 molecule almost never gets to re-emit the photon it absorbed. Instead when the CO2 molecule next collides with an N2 or O2 molecule or perhaps even and Ar atom, there will be mechanical energy and momentum exchanged between the two molecules, and some of that captured energy will become increased kinetic e3nergy of the molecule it collides with. So the captured energy is basically thermalized by collisionsso there isn’t the energy left to re-emit the captured photon.; even if such a transition is allowed.

    In the much rarer atmosphere of the stratosphere, the mean free path between molecules is long enough that re-emission can occur. But since the molecular density is so low up there the amount of energy involved is small. Most of the intercepted LWIR radiant energy is thermalized, and becomes mechanical motion of a Temperature increased atmopsheric molecule.

    The warmer atmosphere eventually emits a thermal continuum LWIR spectrum that is characteristic of the Temperature.

    The original Jeans calculation of the radiation spectrum emitted by heated matter, calculates the total number of modes of oscillation in some mass of matter (say a mole); whcih is some factor times Avogadro’s number of degrees of freedom, and then a certain energy is assigned to each mode of oscillation. In Jeans Calculation the energy was assumed to have any continuous value. The result was Jeans formula predicts an infinite amount of energy at very short wavelengths; known as the “Ultra-Violet Catastrophy”.

    Planck’s innovation was to quantize the amount of energy per degree of freedom rather than let it have any continuous value; and that is what eliminated the UV catastrophe and gave us the Planck Black Body Raiiation law, and the start of quantum Physics. Now I’m just roughing this out since I am writing from memory that goes way back to the Plasticine era. I’ll let the PhD Physicists dress it up properly.

    But an important thing to note, is that neither Jeans earlier work; nor Planck’sd erivation involves in any way; and atomic structure or electron orbitals; or anything to do with the energy states of any atom; it is quite independent of material atomic structure.

    So in particular it isn’t capable of predicting any line spectrum of a similar nature to that emitted by atoms or ions in excited states.

    It is a result of the mechanical energy of atomic or molecular motions; that we describe as “heat”. I’m given to understand that in the Classical Physics the origin of the thermal radiation simply results from the acceleration of electric charges.

    A moving charge (constant velocity) comprises and electric current; which in turn creates a magnetic field, along with the electric field that results from the charge itself. So a varying current (and magnetic field) is the result of electric charge undergoing acceleration; and classical theory predicts that it must radiate energy.

    That is exactly how radio antennas work to radiate EM waves.

    You could take a superconducting antenna wire at near zero K, and apply a varying AC current to it, and you should get electromagnetic waves radiated form that antenna; even though it is basically at zero K.

    In all materials above zero Kelvins the thermal motion of the atoms or molecules results in accelerated charge and classical theory predicts a continuously radiated field.; solely as a copnsequence of the accelerated charge.

    The whole reason for the Stanford Electron accelerator being linear; rather than circular, is that high energy electrons running around a circle are in continuous acceleration (remember Velocity is a vector so a change in direction is an acceleration) and the electron stream would constantly lose energy to radiation; which would eventually limit the energy of the electrons, since they would lose all the energy you give them during the next trip around the ring.. It’s also the reason the LHC is so damn big, because even heavy particles at those energies will radiate while going in circles so they have to be big circles.

    So it is a mistake to believe that gases like the atmosphere don’t emit thermal black body like radiation; they do, and it isn’t because of electrons jumping orbitals in the atom; but just due to the acceleration of thermal motions) mostly at the time of collisions.

    Well the PhDs can sanitize this for you but this is the general idea.

  56. Bill Illis says:

    Thanks Bob.

    I guess I would say I have little faith in the pre-Argo-2003 data but …

    … we can translate some of the data into:

    – 0.116C of warming from 1955 to 2008 in the 0-3000 metre ocean (to be revised downward slightly based on the new data).

    – about 0.2 Watts/m2 going into the 0 – 700 metre ocean from 1955 to 2003 and a slight negative -0.06 Watts/m2 coming out from 2003 to 2008/10 based on the Knox and Douglas, Loehle, Willis papers from 2003 to 2008/2010.

    – about 0.1 Watts/m2 going into the 700 – 3000 metre ocean (based on the 2005 Levitus paper);

    – about 0.05 Watts/m2 going into the 3000+ metre ocean (based on the Purkey and Johnson paper we recently discussed).

    Remember we are looking for 0.8 to 0.9 Watts/me going into the oceans/glacial melt so that leaves us about 0.5 Watts/m2 short.

    And we should not expect the deep oceans to be warming right now and bypassing the 0-700 metre ocean. So, from 2003 to 2008/2010, the ocean warming/absorption of GHG warming is not happening.

  57. commieBob says:

    Thanks Bob.
    FYI, here is the Python code for my naive calculation of the temperature change based on a change in GJ of 0.4 .

    cc = 10e6 #cubic cm per cubic metre
    temp = 293.
    cal = cc * temp
    deltaGj = 0.4
    print “cal “, cal
    joules = cal / 4.184
    print “joules “, joules
    gj = joules / 1e9
    print “gj per cubic metre”, gj
    print “gj in 700 M column “, 700 * gj
    print “percent “, 100 * deltaGj / (gj * 700)
    print “delta Temperature “, temp * deltaGj / (gj * 700)

    Here’s the output.

    cal 2930000000.0
    joules 700286806.883
    gj per cubic metre 0.700286806883
    gj in 700 M column 490.200764818
    percent 0.0815992198927
    delta Temperature 0.239085714286

    Both my naive calculation and Levitus et al (2005) give a very small change in energy compared with the total. In both cases, the temperature change seems to me to be well within a reasonable value for measurement error.

    I guess my question is: How much importance should we give the energy accumulation in the ocean? Can we just treat the ocean as a giant (roughly) constant temperature heat sink?

    Anyway, if we’re going to have runaway global warming, the atmosphere will have to do it independently of the oceans. There simply isn’t enough energy to warm the ocean very much over a hundred years.

  58. A Crooks of Adelaide says:

    Call me a sceptic, but this revision looks a bit like the revision of Hansen’s data shown on WUWT recently.
    Flatten out the past variability, the 2005 – 2006 peak gets reduced, all to enhance to 2010 peak, and make it look more like continuous rise to 2010.
    Improves the overall narative.

  59. Bob Tisdale says:

    Barry Day says: “I would like to hear your thoughts on how much or what percentage,Earth’s core heat from >”increased” 1 km), implying that ~24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered. .(END QUOTE)”

    I haven’t studied the papers or webpages you linked and can’t comment.

  60. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale said:

    “Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?”

    The sun is highest overhead at the equator and therefore imparting more energy to the surface per unit of area. That is why the equator is warmer than the poles. As one moves poleward the angle of incidence decreases and less energy is imparted to the surface per unit of area.

    It follows that cloudiness over an area near the equator would block more incoming energy than the same degree of cloudiness further away from the equator unless you can show that cloud densities and amounts also change to negate the effect.

    So if the jets and the ITCZ move poleward the skies will become clearer over more ocean surfaces and more energy will be able to enter the oceans from solar visible and shortwave radiation which penetrates up to 200 metres.

    The converse applies if the jets and the ITCZ move equatorward again.

    It is the latitudinal movement of the clouds that changes the global net downward radiation at the surface and the clouds have a greater effect the nearer the equator they are situated because of the higher angle of incidence of solar radiation onto any clouds and into the oceans when clouds are not present.

    A cloud at the equator will look brighter than the same cloud situated more poleward because it is reflecting more energy. That would make a difference to the Earthshine numbers and it is apparent that from the Earthshine project that the albedo of the Earth did start to increase from the late 90s which is when the jets started moving equatorward again.

  61. Person of Choler says:

    So what difference in temperature from whatever base is assumed, produces an anomaly of, for example, .078 gJ/m^2 in 700m depth of sea water.

    .078 gJ = 18642 kcal which, in 700 m^3 of water implies ~.027C.

    Thus we are talking about differences on the order of hundredths of a degree C.

    Should this be so, how does this difference compare to the expected errors of measurement and averaging, given that the measurements are from a few buoys floating around the ocean?

    Would somebody set me straight if I did the conversions wrong?

  62. bob says:

    George E Smith, thanks for the elementary physics lesson, but my question remains unanswered – what is the ratio of the mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to the total water in the oceans? The next question would be how much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the deep oceans by 0.1c in 50 years? Then, inquiring minds would want to know, is that amount of energy even remotely available to be transferred from the sum total of all CO2 molecules by any energy transfer mode you can think of. If the deep oceans are warming, then CO2 can not be the primary cause — there’s simply not enough energy available.

  63. David Corcoran says:

    How come all past non-satellite data keeps changing in the past? Is there some temporal transmogrification mechanism that I’m unaware of that is peculiar to non-satellite data? Really, does 1950s temperature change in the 2010? And what will it be in 2011?

  64. vukcevic says:

    Bob Tisdale says: October 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    vukcevic: Some day you’ll link the source of your North Atlantic Precursor and ‘PDO generator’, but based on your linked comment, it doesn’t look like it will be soon.

    Bob
    There is data available but not available in form to plug in directly. It took some months to assembly whole thing together. I also found that for PDO linear, while for CET square (power of 2) law is best match, which is understandable considering difference in the nature between two, while starting data have identical physical property.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-PDO.htm

    The other difference is that CET response is direct (no delay), while for PDO a 10-12 year delay is required. On face of it this would give PDO predictive power.
    I have assembled all data and most necessary information for the CET driver, for PDO got most of the data but still need to assemble the background info.
    Putting in public domain anything more than graphs (just in case I fall under No.11 bus) , without completed background information, is not something I whish to do at moment; all graphs have normalised arbitrary unit values. One thing I can say is that the initial numbers on which my graphs are based are as good as any, with confidence I would say, by far superior to any in this field of science.

    Enneagram says: October 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm
    Remarkable your new graph. Hope you will reveal the driver.

    Adolfo I am just getting together what there is available out there already . There is no mystery.

  65. Patrick Davis says:

    The mass of the “Earth” is about 40 times the mass of the water on it. So how much does this mass affect the oceans?

  66. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: I asked, “Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?”

    And you replied but did not provide data, since data will many times contradict your speculations. You discussed the latitudinal variations of the ITCZ and concluded your comment with, “A cloud at the equator will look brighter than the same cloud situated more poleward because it is reflecting more energy. That would make a difference to the Earthshine numbers and it is apparent that from the Earthshine project that the albedo of the Earth did start to increase from the late 90s which is when the jets started moving equatorward again.”

    You’re confusing global cloud albedo for ITCZ cloud albedo.

    Let’s look at the ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data for the part of the globe where the ITZC is most prevalent. The ISCCP data is only available through the KNMI Climate Explorer from July 1983 to June 2006, but that’s long enough to capture what you’ve said. The ITCZ is not a significant phenomenon over the Indian Ocean due the IOD and it’s not significant over the western Pacific due to the convection over the PWP, so we’ll limit the data to 10S-10N, 180-40E. Based on the logic you expressed in the quote above, the drop in equatorial cloud amount from 1983 to the late 1990s and rise from the late 1990s to the end of the data…

    …would be dependent on the location of the ITCZ.

    Let’s further divide that data into its north and south components. First we’ll look at the Total Cloud Amount percentages (not anomalies):

    The ITCZ is located north of the equator for the vast majority of the year, so the Northern Cloud Amount is higher than those in the South. But note how the two curves mimic one another. They both dip and rebound, with the trough in the late 1990s. So let’s look at the cloud amount anomalies for those parts of the globe:

    The two curves are basically the same, Stephen, with some divergences due to ENSO and another factor, possibly Sea Level Pressure. Therefore, most of the variability is independent of your conjecture about ITZC latitude.

    Once again, you speculations are not supported by data.

  67. Paolo M. says:

    Bob and George,
    you can’t know that, but I’m not that stupid :-)

    OHC is a mass integrated measure.
    So what does that m**-2 stand for?

    The original NODC file is in Joules *10**18.
    Where does that denominator come from?
    Has Bob (or Climate Explorer) divided for an area of something?
    Or is it just a Climate Explorer typo?

    Anyway, thanks both for your previous answer and the next one.

  68. TomVonk says:

    The lifetime of the excited state of CO2 caused by the surface (or atmospheric) emitted LWIR photons captured by the CO2, is much longer than the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere; so the CO2 molecule almost never gets to re-emit the photon it absorbed. Instead when the CO2 molecule next collides with an N2 or O2 molecule or perhaps even and Ar atom, there will be mechanical energy and momentum exchanged between the two molecules, and some of that captured energy will become increased kinetic e3nergy of the molecule it collides with. So the captured energy is basically thermalized by collisionsso there isn’t the energy left to re-emit the captured photon.; even if such a transition is allowed.

    This is absolutely incorrect .
    If you measure the downwelling infrared radiation during the night you will measure something like 200 W/m² .
    Where do you think it comes from ?
    According to what you say this value should be exactly zero because all IR energy got “thermalized” and nothing is left to be emitted by CO2 and H2O .

    In reality the CO2 and H2O molecules emit approximately the same energy that they absorb . The reason for that is that the “thermalisation” works both ways – CO2 “thermalizes” O2 and N2 but O2 and N2 also “thermalize” CO2 .
    And a “thermalized” CO2 is a CO2 that can and will emit as the night downwelling IR shows .

  69. pyromancer76 says:

    Bob Tisdale, thanks for the painstaking efforts, clarity of graphs, and generous answers to questions. I, too, am grateful for the brief summary. (I am not happy about the OHC-global linear trend dropping by about 9%.)

  70. Bob Tisdale says:

    pyromancer76 says: “I am not happy about the OHC-global linear trend dropping by about 9%.”

    You’ve sparked my interest. Why?

  71. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale said:

    “Therefore, most of the variability is independent of your conjecture about ITZC latitude.”

    My comments have been about the combined effect of ALL the global cloud systems INCLUDING the ITCZ. I specifically referred to the ITCZ AND the jets more than once.

    Please read what I say more carefully. I have found that all your adverse comments are based on subtle and not so subtle misapprehensions about what I say and then you go off at an irrelevant tangent.

    I am aware that the movement of the ITCZ is very much less than the apparent shifting of the jets so it is hardly a surprise if the movement of the ITCZ on its own is insufficient to explain observations.

  72. Bob Tisdale says:

    Paolo M. says: “Has Bob (or Climate Explorer) divided for an area of something?”

    The NODC OHC data is provided in 1 degree grids. KNMI divides the OHC data by the ocean surface area of the coordinates selected by the user.

  73. Bob Tisdale says:

    vukcevic says:
    October 19, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Thanks for the reply/explanation.

  74. Gino says:

    Why is Heat divided by area? Is their model 2D?

  75. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde replied: “Please read what I say more carefully. I have found that all your adverse comments are based on subtle and not so subtle misapprehensions about what I say and then you go off at an irrelevant tangent.”

    I don’t misread or misunderstand what you say. I specifically selected the tropics and ITCZ because you dwelled on the equator in an earlier reply when you wrote (in part), “The sun is highest overhead at the equator and therefore imparting more energy to the surface per unit of area…” and because it was easy to identify the latitudes in which the ITCZ is located. If your logic fails for the ITCZ, is there any reason to expect it to work elsewhere? No.

    The curves for the ISCCP total cloud cover amount data are basically the same regardless of whether one looks at the equator (10S-10N), or the tropics (20S-20N), or the globe (90S-90N):

    So unless you can document the latitudes in which the jets have migrated and can document the variations in cloud amount at those specific latitudes, you’re simply fooling yourself. The effects you’ve claimed for the ITCZ don’t exist, yet you continue to somehow believe they exist at higher latitudes. You really need to learn to work with the data that’s available to see if your basic speculations have any basis in fact.

  76. Stephen Wilde says:

    Earthshine changes occurred when the jets shifted. Enough said.

    And it is not cloud amounts that are necessarily relevant but the amount of energy reflected by the clouds globally and that is primarily a function of latitudinal position so your cloud amount data is of little relevance. Another example of going off at a tangent.

    It simply cannot be the case that shifting all the main cloud bands equatorwards or polewards has a zero effect on albedo.

    Pull the other one, as they say in UK.

  77. vukcevic says:

    Hi Bob
    Re PDO data: if you get in touch I’ll email the PDO data set.
    My email is at the top (far right) of my webpage.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  78. As an aside, but related point, the influence of human-made aerosols on the ocean heat content changes:

    About 90% of all human-made cooling (sulfate) aerosols are emitted in the NH. The ITCZ hinders the exchange with the SH and the low residence time of most of these aerosols (days to weeks) prevents most of them to reach the SH.

    Taken that most oceans reach a depth far beyond the 700 m of importance for most of the heat content changes, the difference in solar (and GHG) energy reaching the surface should be less in the NH than in the SH. That is in two steps (according to the IPCC): direct reflection of sunlight by white aerosols and more reflection by clouds, due to more clouds (more condensation nuclei) and denser clouds (more finer drops). The difference should be substantially, as some 1 W/m2 difference in forcing less in the NH (90%) than in the SH (10%), according to the IPCC forcing figure of 1.1 W/m2 for direct and indirect cooling by sulfate aerosols.

    The surprise now is that the NH oceans heat content rises faster than the SH oceans, while they should receive less radiation. Imn my opinion, that means that the cooling effect of the human-made aerosols is largely overblown…

    Of course, one need to take into account that the surface flow of the oceans in the Atlantic is S to N, but in the Pacific Ocean it is N to S, and the North Pacific Ocean heats faster than the South Pacific Ocean too…

    With the Levitus figures, here are the graphs for the combined hemispheric and total oceans:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oceans_heat.html

  79. vukcevic says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:October 19, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    ……………..
    I have looked at number of your web pages, including http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html
    For ‘…. graphs and comments, used in discussions’, here is one more for your attention:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm

  80. sky says:

    OHC is, of course, a vital variable in the climate system. But even in the Argo bouy era, it is a metric that is very difficult to quantify accurately, as the corrections now issued by NODC show. Prior to Argo, the geographic coverage is very poor, especially in the SH. This makes estimation of the uncertainty bounds even more difficult. While sample variance may provide a useful indication when data plentiful and the geographic field is nearly homogenous, it not a reliable indicator of standard error when those conditions are not met. The earlier stretches of the OHC time series thus need to be taken with bushel of salt.

  81. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde wrote, “Earthshine changes occurred when the jets shifted. Enough said.” But then you continued, because you apparently hadn’t said enough, “And it is not cloud amounts that are necessarily relevant but the amount of energy reflected by the clouds globally and that is primarily a function of latitudinal position so your cloud amount data is of little relevance. Another example of going off at a tangent.”

    No tangent. Maybe it’s your failure to accept what’s presented that makes you think I’ve gone off on a tangent. I’ve shown you that there were global changes in cloud amount. I’ve shown you that the equatorial, tropical, and global cloud cover curves are all basically the same. And unless you somehow missed it, the cloud amount data present curves that you’ve described for the earthshine project cloud reflectivity.

    You’ve assumed that the variations in the locations of the jets have caused the changes in global albedo (earthshine project), but the fact is the variations in global cloud amount caused the changes in global albedo.

    And you wrote, “It simply cannot be the case that shifting all the main cloud bands equatorwards or polewards has a zero effect on albedo.”

    That’s the point you need to prove, and so far you have not.

  82. Bob Tisdale says:

    vukcevic says: “Re PDO data: if you get in touch I’ll email the PDO data set.”

    I would be happier, as would many, with a detailed description of what the North Atlantic Precursor and PDO Generator datasets are comparised of, and how they are calculated. But that is apparently top secret at the moment.

    Regards

  83. George E. Smith says:

    “”” TomVonk says:
    October 19, 2010 at 5:59 am
    The lifetime of the excited state of CO2 caused by the surface (or atmospheric) emitted LWIR photons captured by the CO2, is much longer than the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere; so the CO2 molecule almost never gets to re-emit the photon it absorbed. Instead when the CO2 molecule next collides with an N2 or O2 molecule or perhaps even and Ar atom, there will be mechanical energy and momentum exchanged between the two molecules, and some of that captured energy will become increased kinetic e3nergy of the molecule it collides with. So the captured energy is basically thermalized by collisionsso there isn’t the energy left to re-emit the captured photon.; even if such a transition is allowed.

    This is absolutely incorrect .
    If you measure the downwelling infrared radiation during the night you will measure something like 200 W/m² .
    Where do you think it comes from ?
    According to what you say this value should be exactly zero because all IR energy got “thermalized” and nothing is left to be emitted by CO2 and H2O . “””

    Tom, I’m assuming that this is addressed to me, since the early part looks very like a cut and paste of something I recall writing.

    So let me re quote what you just said:-

    “”””” According to what you say this value should be exactly zero because all IR energy got “thermalized” and nothing is left to be emitted by CO2 and H2O . “””””

    Why would the emission of thermal radiation from the atmosphere go to zero at night ? What has the time of day to do with the emission of thermal radiation from the atmosphere ?

    The atmospheric emission doesn’t go to zero either night or day because it’s Temperature never goes to zero (Kelvins) either day or night; and that is the only thing that determines the atmospheric emission.

    Presumably at night time; as in the day time, the earth surface is and continues to radiate LWIR thermal emissions upwards; which in the appropriate absorption bands will be still captured (in part) by whatever GHGs are in the atmosphere; including both CO2 and H2O. And presumably the daytime warmed surface will also for a while continue to conduct heat by contact to the atmosphere, which will then rise to higher altitudes; so the radiant heating sources, and the other thermal processes do not shut down just because it is night time.
    Tru with the solar spectrum incoming energy being shut down at night that source of atmospehric heating will cease; but just because there is no sunlight does not mean the atmospheric night time temperature will drop to zero K so that atmospheric emissions cease.

    If the surface upward LWIR is 390 W/m^2 as claimed by Trenberth; which is an appropriate level for a 288 K black body radiating body; and you say the atmosphere is down radiating 200 W/m^2 at night; to which we should add another 200 W/m^2 which it must be radiating upwards; then that would reasonably correspond to the expected emission from a black body at about the same 288 K Temperature. Not that the atmospheric radiation should be exactly BB like; but that at least puts an upper bound on what it could be if it is at +15 deg C; which it likely is in some locations.

    Ultimately, the atmosphere does not care what the source of energy is that establishes its Temperature at any location. Whether by solar radiation capture in O2/O3/H2O and to a weak extent CO2; or by 10.1 micron peak surface emitted LWIR radiation or by direct contact conduction and convection; not to mention the import of Latent heat of evaporation from water surfaces; any of those energy sources will heat the atmosphere; even as it loses energy by its own natural thermal emission.

    So the absoluteness of your assertion of incorrectness is rather questionable. I stand by what I wrote. Nothing in my (very rudimentary) explanation suggests that night time atmospheric Temperatures polunge to absolute zero shutting off all thermal emission; and the only atmopsheric heating process that does shut off, is due to the absence of solar spectrum input; which is all that distinguishes night time from daylight hours.

  84. George E. Smith says:

    “”” bob says:
    October 18, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    George E Smith, thanks for the elementary physics lesson, but my question remains unanswered – what is the ratio of the mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to the total water in the oceans? “””

    Well Bob, I hope I didn’t go to all that trouble for nothing.

    I don’t have any idea what the mass ratio is of atmospheric CO2 molecules to the total ocean mass; or why it is even relevent. I don’t even know why it is relevent what the atmospheric CO2 to total atmosphere mass ratio is.

    Tom Vonk attacks my argument and almost suggests that the CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere can radiate 200 W/m^2 downwards at night. I’m sure he doesn’t mean that; the total atmosphere may do that; but only a miniscule amount of that total irradiance can be due to the GHG molecules in the atmosphere; roughly proportional to their abundance. I’m in agreement with Tom that the GHG molecules are also thermalized as a result of their collisions with the main atmospheric gases
    and they are all at essentially the same temperature.

    But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.

    As to the point of your question. I simply suggested that because of the 20:1 wavelength shift from 0.5 micron solar peak to 10 micron earth thermal peak, the downward radiation from the atmosphere part of which is due to GH capture by GHG molecules is strongly absorbed in the very water surface (50 microns) and prompts rapid evaporation , so that much of that energy is quickly returned to the atmosphere as latent heat and not conducted down to the deeper oceans for long term storage.

    The energy stored in the deep oceans originated from direct solar spectrum input; and not from downward atmospheric LWIR radiation.

    And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.

    And no I don’t know what those comparative numbers are which is why I asked Bob if he knew.

  85. Allan Kiik says:

    George E. Smith wrote:

    “But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.”

    This is very plausible point and I guess it’s clearly visible in various measurements of back-radiation spectrum (eyeballing the graphs) . I have been arguing about this with two really bright guys (Roy Spencer and Science Of Doom) and both disagree strongly. Do you know why?

  86. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale said:

    “You’ve assumed that the variations in the locations of the jets have caused the changes in global albedo (earthshine project), but the fact is the variations in global cloud amount caused the changes in global albedo.”

    Well maybe, but have you shown that that is enough on its own ? In any case the change in cloud amounts could be a result of latitudinal shifting. Simply changing the latitudinal position of the jets would cause changes in cloud cover by stretching the air mass boundaries along a greater circumference around the globe.

    So we have several potential causes for the albedo change:

    i) a change in the intensity of downward solar radiation that was being blocked by the clouds as they moved latitudinally and/or

    ii) a change in the cloud amounts as the cloud bands were stretched out in lower latitudes.

    Has anyone quantified the albedo effects of both mechanisms ?

    Either way the change in Earthshine coincided with and would have been driven by the latitudinal shifting.

    Unless you have other explanations for the change in cloud quantities that is. Svensmark’s proposal would be one such of course.

  87. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    October 19, 2010 at 4:07 am

    I notice that all those cloud amount graphs are limited to the regions 10 degrees either side of the equator.

    Accordingly the cloud amount changes could be explained by the weather systems either side of the equator shifting more poleward until the late 90s thereby reducing cloud cover because the clouds moved poleward out of the area in question. The change in the late 90s could well be a sign that the clouds are moving back into the area again. It tells us nothing about the actual quantity of clouds globally.

    To deal with your cloud amount objection we really need to see data on global cloud quantities and even then the global cloud quantities could themselves be a function of latitudinal positioning of the jets and air mass boundaries.

    So could you please prove to me that the changes in albedo are a result of changes in total global cloud amounts and not simply changed reflectance as the clouds moved to areas of more or less intense sunlight.

  88. Stephen Wilde says:

    Ok I’ve found the global link that you provided:

    So can you separate cloud amount changes caused by shifts in latitudinal positioning stretching out the air mass boundaries from other possible causes ?

    Can you then separate out the albedo effect from the cloud quantity cause and that from the changed reflectance cause ?

  89. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob. it’s probably unwise to keep banging away at each other in public.

    Suffice it to say that in this thread your suggestion that I ought to include cloudiness changes as well as reflectance changes as having an effect on albedo is accepted.

    However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets. Adding the cloudiness effect to the reflectance effect simply strengthens my hypothesis by adding to the power of latitudinal shifts to affect global albedo.

  90. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Allan Kiik says:
    October 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
    George E. Smith wrote:

    “But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.”

    This is very plausible point and I guess it’s clearly visible in various measurements of back-radiation spectrum (eyeballing the graphs) . I have been arguing about this with two really bright guys (Roy Spencer and Science Of Doom) and both disagree strongly. Do you know why? “””

    Allan, it is very difficult to figure out why some scientists say what they say; often it is just miscommunication. I don’t know who or what “Science of Doom” is; but I have a high opinion of Dr Roy Spencer; and Professor John Christy too; but I must admit, that I am perplexed that they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time tying to support the concept of “Climate Sensitivity”, and a logarithmic CO2-Surface Temperature link. I can’t find any empirical or Physics theoretical support for such a simple mathematical relationship. Dr’s Roy and John seem to support much smaller values for cs than the IPCC and Hansen promulgate; but I think we would make much more progress by just abandoning the whole notion. The water cycle is clearly what is regulating the earth’s comfort range; and preventing the Temperature from ever going above +22 deg C no matter how much CO2 there is.

    But I read everything that Spencer and Christy put out that I can get my hands on. Now I haven’t read anything from them about the spectrum of atmospheric radiant emissions.

    All the text book data that I can find (mostly from the Infra-Red Handbook) which might be a bit dated, shows an external view of the earth that is quite black body spectrum like although distorted since it is of course not isothermal; and those spectra show the dips due to the ozone and CO2 bands; but there is no indication of any bright line emissions such as a decay from an excited resonance state like the CO2 bend mode.

    Now Phil, who has been noticeably absent for a while, has pointed out that in the stratosphere; where the densities and Temperatures are much lower, the mean free path or alternatively the mean inter-collision time is long enough compare to the mean lifetime of the ecited CO2 state (the bend mode oscillation) that it can spontaneously decay, and emit a photon with a specific energy; which would have some Doppler broadened line width of course.

    But the total atmospehric emission spectrum should range from around 4-5 microns upt to 80-100 microns for most of the energy.

    Now Spencer and Christy are using some microwave Oxygen frequency, as a proxy for Temperature in their satellite measurements. I can’t claim to have an intimate understanding of exactly what they are doing or the physical basis; but Roy has explained it a couple of times; and I don’t have one iota of discomfort in accepting that in that work they do know what they are doing.

    So it is not that molecular or atomic spectral lines are absent from the atmospehric emission; I’m sure they are there; but the thermal continuum is there also; and it depends only on the atmospheric Temperature.

    Tom Vonk’s point about the GHG molecule energies also being thermalized by collisions with N2 or O2 is of course quite true; I’ve never claimed that the CO2 or H2O doesn’t emit some of the downward (and upward) thermal radiation; but it is small potatoes since they are a small fraction of the atmosphere; and it really isn’t disturbing the total spectrum. But because of the very short mean free path in the lower atmosphere; they seldom get a chance to simply re-emit the original exciting photon they captured. Well it is not clear to me that the spontaneous decay is simply a reversal of the excitation transition. I know in atomic spectra, the decay from an excited state often ends up on a different energy level than the original ground state; so the emission photon energy may be different from the original excitation energy if the excited stated was caused by photo absorption. I’m almost totally rusted out on all that Pauli selection stuff; that determines what transitions are allowed; and I’m pretty weak on molecular spectra. I’m not sure if Anna is up on atomic or molecular spectra; or whether she luxuriates only in that inner snctum of the nucleus.

    Roy Spencer invests a lot of time in the “Political” front line of this whole climate thing, in his support of the talk radio hosts; who need a credible source boost from time to time; so I can see that he is busy with other issues; and not easy to get into a one on one chat with.

    I’m hoping to make one of those annual events that Anthony has attended so I can get some up close with some of those people; and pick their brains; or maybe bend their ears too.

    One thing is that places like WUWT are a great resource for opening the windows, and seeing what blows in.

    My understanding of the Black Body Radiation theory Alan, is that it mostly follows classical Physics of Electro-magnetic fields; and about all Planck did was to insist that the amount of energy assigned to each degree of freedom of all the “oscillators” must be quantized; rather than any continuous value, which is what led Jeans to an untenable conclusion. But you see, there isn’t any “energy level” quantum stuff that I can see; becuase the theory; doesn’t get into the nature of matter at all; there’s no discussion of atomic properties at all a far as I know. While Temperature needs matter to have any meaning; it apparently doesn’t need to know anything about matter besides mass; and if you introduce electric charge; then you have all that is needed for EM radiation given the motions of particle collisions. I can see that the collisions between molecules which is a Temperature effect, involve changes in momentum, velocity, and energy and this must then involve acceleration of electric charges during the encounter; and that may be the entire source of the Thermal spectrum emission.

    I work with a whole basket full of PhD Physicists; but to a man they seem to know more and more about less and less; and unfortunately none of their specialties (which they are damn good at) seems to lie in the field of thermal radiation Physics; so I pretty much have to wallow around in the mud by myself. I have a couple of knowledgeable contacts; but I hate to bother them with stuff that must seem rather trivial to them; and so far I haven’t found any Rosetta Stone text books.

  91. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 20, 2010 at 9:05 am

    “”Bob. it’s probably unwise to keep banging away at each other in public.””
    __________Reply;
    Quite the contrary, I find that a lot of the time when these threads go cold enough for the trolls to be disinterested, as they follow the hot new topics, in search of their much needed attention.

    Allows those with a real interest in the base subject matter to discuss rather than debate points of interest, to where real peer review happens real time to the benefit of total understanding of the process.

    I would like to inject my viewpoints for you to consider as well, because you are both looking at the same problem with out having a real handle on the modulation of the solar drivers, by the actions of the long term periodic forcing of the global circulation patterns, by the multiple lunar tidal forcings and periods of actions.

    The shifts from mostly zonal flow to very loopy jet stream patterns, is a direct result of the effects of the 18.6 year periods of the lunar declinational movement, compounded by the shorter term 27.32 day basic period cycles, inter acting with the gradual shifting of the modulation of the 28 day phase effects with the 27.32 day declinational effects, Better defined by the length of the QBO cycle = 28X27.32 =~765 days. Being further modulated by the synod conjunctions of the outer planets driving the separation between jets, by the more pole ward movement during approach, and the convergence of the resultant fronts post conjunctions.

    Further complicated by the pole shift of the polar vortex’s from South to North and resultant shift in balance in the Sea ice concentration and severity of winter weather, being traceable to the net effects of the outer planets being by heliocentric declination above or below the ecliptic plane, on a longer time cycle, and also being modulated by synod conjunctions of individual planets.

    The ENSO patterns both types of El nino patterns and la nina patterns and arrival timing, are the secondary result of these interactive relationships, and will not be forecast able until the solar system wide driving mechanisms are fully understood.

    Per example once you realize you live two blocks from a large high school, it is easy to under stand why the traffic around 3 pm is just crazy, and every time they have a sports event it extends clear until it is over.

    One of the mechanisms neither of you are considering is the effects on reflectivity and position of the cloud cover, during the charge and discharge cycles of ion pumping into and out of the atmosphere at every synod conjunction, as well as the pass of the Earth between the center of the galaxy and the sun every Northern summer. That affects the amount of atmospheric moisture vapor that is inhibited from condensing into clouds by ionization (effectively static charges) that are mutually repulsive and set the size and density of the cloud droplets.

    None of these effects are modeled well in either weather or climate models, but algorithms can be derived from observations with respect to, the above planetary and lunar effects, that can then be incorporated into the models, coupled with the cyclic patterns of the lunar declinational tidal effects in the production and modulation of the jet streams and their resultant positions, to get some thing that works for as long a term as the length of the longest cyclic patterns considered.

    I read every thing posted to this and several other blogs regarding weather, and it would be a shame that any good ideas I can surmise, from the composite knowledge that can be gleaned should go to waste, by your/their dismissing the composite understanding because it is not all of your/their own making.

  92. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: With respect to your October 20, 2010 at 4:58 am, your October 20, 2010 at 5:44 am, October 20, 2010 at 5:55 am, and your October 20, 2010 at 9:05 am replies, I’ll respond to one of your requests. It seems to be the all-encompassing one in my view. You wrote, “So could you please prove to me that the changes in albedo are a result of changes in total global cloud amounts and not simply changed reflectance as the clouds moved to areas of more or less intense sunlight.”

    In a number of papers, Project Earthshine members have compared their data to ISCCP Cloud Amount data, and as you know, I’ve used one of the ISCCP Cloud Amount products for the graphs on this thread. Here’s a link to the Project Earthshine Bibliography webpage:

    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/bibliography.htm

    You’ll likely find some of the reasons for the similarities and differences between the Project Earthshine and ISCCP Cloud Amount based reflectance data in Pelle et al (2008). They have a link to the in-press version at the top of their bibliography.

    I know I didn’t answer your question, but the links in the bibliography will allow you to research their papers to see if they found whether any latitudinal changes in clouds were the cause for the changes in albedo. I’ve done a few spot checks and couldn’t find anything.

  93. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets.”

    But your view is not based on data and until you can substantiate your views with data, it is only conjecture.

  94. Bob Tisdale says:

    George E. Smith says: “And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.”

    George, I was not a participant in your conversations about LWIR on this thread. You’re referring to the other Bob, I assume. Please correct me if I somehow missed a question.

    Regards

  95. Bill Illis says:

    I think technically the “Jets” form at the boundary between warm and cooler air masses.

    So the Jets do not “move”, the warm and cold air masses either expand or shrink. This is a different view of the issue which should change one’s perspective.

  96. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bill Illis:

    Agreed, thank you. One of my past comments in other threads refers to the expansion and contraction of the polar air masses due to top down solar effects, then the expansion and contraction of the equatorial air masses due to bottom up oceanic effects, with the jets being pushed and pulled to and fro between those two interacting forces.

    Richard Holle:

    Yes, I’ve noted your views on how those other factors might be involved in affecting the overall scanario but as yet I haven’t formed a view because it doesn’t really matter to my hypothesis as to exactly how the top down and bottom up forcings might be modulated thereby. I might need to address that at a later date but at the moment I have to concentrate on and hopefully deal with the top down objections from Dr.Svalgaard and the bottom up objections from Bob Tisdale.
    If the Haigh findings are verified that deals with Dr. Svalgaards objections so I am just waiting on that.
    With regard to Bob’s objections I think they would be partially disposed of if indeed the latitudinal shifting of the jets is the primary cause of observed albedo changes either by changing overall reflectance or changing total cloud quantities or more likely both. Changing albedo alters energy input to the oceans and thus directly impacts ENSO and so if caused by latitudinal jet shifting that could partly deal with Bob’s assertion that ENSO is essentially an internal system phenomenon of a free standing nature.
    I can’t find much data on that and so will have to await developments.
    Ascertaining whether there are any significant temperature discontinuities along the track of the thermohaline circulation would also impact on the supposed free standing nature of ENSO.
    I’m happy that Bob is right as regards ENSO on an interannual basis or up to 30 years. From 30 to 60 years the ENSO variations could be either free standing or externally forced. Over more than 60 years I don’t see that Bob can account for those longer tterm changes from MWP to LIA to date without invoking external forcings and I accept his reasons for not wishing to try.

    Bob Tisdale:
    I couldn’t find anything either but thank you for trying. In the absence of data, conjecture based on observation is valuable because it narrows down the data that should be sought.

  97. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Bob Tisdale says:
    October 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets.”

    But your view is not based on data and until you can substantiate your views with data, it is only conjecture.”

    Actually there is data, namely the observation that the change in Earthshine trend and the change in cloudiness trend were both contemporaneous with the start of the equatorward shift in the jets which I first noted in 2000.

    Furthermore all three changes were contemporaneous with the decline in solar activity, the tendency of the Polar Oscillations to become more negative, the cessation of warming in the troposphere, the shifting of the PDO to a negative phase and cessation of cooling in the stratosphere and mesosphere.

    Then the Haigh paper also found that ozone is apparently increasing in the mososphere and top few Km of the stratosphere just as the solar wind falls away (and I noted that the number of solar protons destroying ozone in the mesosphere is falling thereby potentially reversing the anticipated cooling effect of a quiet sun on the mesosphere and topmost portion of the stratosphere).

    So, any viable climate description has to accommodate every one of those bits of data plus the climate cycling from MWP to LIA to date and ideally also the change in the degree of climate variability observed between glacial epochs and interglacials.

    Mine does. Is there another ?

  98. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Bob Tisdale says:
    October 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    George E. Smith says: “And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.”

    George, I was not a participant in your conversations about LWIR on this thread. You’re referring to the other Bob, I assume. Please correct me if I somehow missed a question.

    Regards “”””

    Bob, it looks like I got a couple of threads crossed. You had described the ocean heat content as consisting of stored solar plus downwelling LWIR sourced; and that tweaked me to ask if you had numbers for each (solar and down LWIR) in J/m^2 or whatever you use. I understand the solar part somewhat; but have always thought that the LWIR results mostly in evaporation rather than ocean storage; so I was curious if you had separate contribution nmubers. If not it doesn’t matter; don’t do any research to find it.

    As to Stephen Wilde’s theory of latitudinal cloud shifts; I have no opinion on that other than I’m not aware of any observational data that supports or otherwise such a theory.

    I have offered that Wentz et al’s report of the 7% increase in Evap/Atmospheric H2O/Precip for a one deg C Surface Temperature increase; implies a similar % increase in (precipitable) cloud cover, since such clouds must go hand in hand with precipitation.
    And I elaborated that the (7%) increase could be comprised of any combination of cloud area, cloud optical (and water) density, and cloud persistence time; to which could be added that if existing levels of cloud coverage, did shift to more moisture rich environments such as over warm oceans, that the “cloud cover” as I describe it would of course increase.

    But what Wilde describes is adequately covered by my combination of area/water density/lifetime. His shift to warmer climes would likely result in higher water content, but also with area and time components.

    So like I said, I have no opinion on his theory; except that it doesn’t conflict with what I conjectured; or add to it either unless Stephen actually has observational data to support the occurrence of his latitude shift effect; and I gather you feel there isn’t supporting data.

    Stephen disagrees with my conjecture in favor of his thesis, and his “New Climate Theory”, while others have simply asked whether I can say which changes, the area, or the water content, or the persistence time; which suggests to me that they just don’t understand the concept. I don’t know; and I don’t care which it is; but some climate researcher might want to know or find out. I’m only interested in the net combined effect; which I believe is the major climate (Temperature) regulating mechanism on earth.
    How the heat moves around in all these cycles, and where it hides out (in the oceans) is certainly of importance for local climates; but doesn’t really come into play much in the overalll energy balance of the planet; which is about the limit of my real interest (and knowledge).

    Regards

    George

  99. Craig Loehle says:

    I am pleased to note that the big jump in 2003 at the point when Argo data entered the database is now gone–a jump that I pointed out last year here and a Pielke Sr. blogs with a suspicion that it was artificial.

  100. Stephen Wilde says:

    As to ITCZ shifts:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3p1736qm55vm080/

    As to jet stream shifts:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3p1736qm55vm080/

    but in fact by the time of publication in 2006 the jets were already going back equatorward and only now is the mainstream realising what I first noticed around 2000.

    http://scienceblog.com/1203/changes-in-jet-stream-storm-tracks-linked-to-prairie-drought-patterns/

    then this one covers the period up to 2001 when I contend it went into reverse:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/

    So all the bits of data are out there. One just needs to join the dots.

  101. Stephen Wilde says:

    To save you some time here is the most relevant extract:

    “From 1979 to 2001, the Northern Hemisphere’s jet stream moved northward on average at a rate of about 1.25 miles a year, according to the paper published Friday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The authors suspect global warming is the cause, but have yet to prove it.

    The jet stream is a high-speed, constantly shifting river of air about 30,000 feet above the ground that guides storm systems and cool air around the globe. And when it moves away from a region, high pressure and clear skies predominate.

    Two other jet streams in the Southern Hemisphere are also shifting poleward, the study found.”

  102. Bob Tisdale says:

    George E. Smith says: “Bob, it looks like I got a couple of threads crossed. You had described the ocean heat content as consisting of stored solar plus downwelling LWIR sourced…”

    I did? I don’t believe I’ve ever described OHC as having a component of longwave infrared.

  103. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: Thanks for the quote, which was, “From 1979 to 2001, the Northern Hemisphere’s jet stream moved northward on average at a rate of about 1.25 miles a year, according to the paper published Friday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The authors suspect global warming is the cause, but have yet to prove it.”

    Over the 22 years of the study, the jets have shifted 27.5 miles, something I find hard to believe was a measured variation, probably some statistical data manipulation. Anyway that would be about 0.5 degrees latitude. Do you think that would make a norticeable difference in Downward Shortwave Radiation, Stephen, assuming they’re correct? The other question, are those measured distances over the oceans, or over land, or both? Did the jets move more over land than the ocean? Things to consider if we’re discussing DSR for the oceans.

    Regards

  104. Stephen Wilde says:

    0.5 degrees latitude over 22 years is not a great deal but as I’ve said many times it is a slow and irregular process process and it really comes into its own over that 500 / 1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date. The cycle could even be up to 800 / 1600 years as per that delay between temperature rises and subsequent CO2 responses. That would fit the 1500 year climate periodicity noted by some. It’s early days in our consideration of such matters.

    Being an irregular process over a period 20 or 30 times longer than the period of observation I doubt that that 22 year period is truly representative so there is plenty of scope for a total shift of 1000 miles or much faster short term shifts especially if the oceanic and solar contributions were to be supplementing one another for a while such as during a period of La Nina plus an active sun or El Nino plus inactive sun.

    That would come to about 10 to 20 degrees latitude in all or around 1000 miles and the significance is that it changes net warming to net cooling which accumulates the climate effect over time.

    As to being noticeable the fact is that people quickly start noticing and regional agriculture is soon affected if the jets overhead shift just a couple of hundred miles. In UK we can all see a difference between the climate of London and the climate only 200 miles north. The distance between London and the north of Scotland is around 1000 miles and that is a big climate difference in terms of human perceptions..

    Although we have seen some shifts during our lifetimes we have been lucky to not yet have seen how large and fast the shifts can be.

    As to the other questions they are all sensible but one really needs to ask the authors. However I would expect the shifts to be greater on the eastern side of ocean areas for example the jets approaching western Europe can shift anywhere between Gibraltar and Icealnd. The reason being that I see the bottom up oceanic effects as being more powerful and the Earth’s rotation as it is the effect accumulates as the prevailing winds cross the oceans. Its quite a large effect on the west of the Americas too is it not ?

Comments are closed.