This paper is to be published on-line on Friday in Physics Letters A Dr. Douglas graciously sent me an advance copy, of which I’m printing some excerpts. Douglas and Knox show some correlations between Top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The authors credit Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. with reviving interest on the subject due to his discussions on using ocean heat content as a metric for climate change.
Abstract
Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
D.H. Douglass and R, S, Knox
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, PO Box 270171, Rochester, NY 14627-0171, USA
Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–mid-1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.
Introduction:
A strong connection between Earth’s radiative imbalance and the heat content of the oceans has been known for some time (see, e.g., Peixoto and Oort [1]). The heat content has played an important role in recent discussions of climate change, and Pielke [2] has revived interest in its relationship with radiation. Many previous papers have emphasized the importance of heat content of the ocean, particularly the upper ocean, as a diagnostic for changes in the climate system [3–7]. In this work we analyze recent heat content data sets, compare them with corresponding data on radiative imbalance, and point out certain irregularities that can be associated with climate shifts. In Section 2 the conservation of energy is applied to the climate system and the approximations involved in making the radiationheat content connection are discussed. In Section 3 data sources are enumerated. Section 4 gives the radiation imbalance for the Earth’s climate system. In Section 5, climate shifts, radiative imbalances and other climate parameters are discussed. A summary is in Section 6.
Discussion:
…
What is the cause of these climate shifts? We suggest that the low frequency component of the Pacific Decade Oscillation (PDO) may be involved. The PDO index changes from positive to negative near 1960; it remains negative until the mid-1970s where it
becomes positive; then it becomes negative again at about 2000. This mimics the FTOA data. The PDO index is one of the inputs in the synchronization analysis of Swanson and Tsonis [43]. One would like to be able to predict future climate. Such predictions are based upon the present initial conditions and some expectation that changes in the climate state are continuous. However, if there are abrupt changes such as reported by Swanson and Tsonis then this is not possible. These abrupt changes presumably
occur because the existing state is no longer stable and there is a transition to a new stable state.
Summary:
We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred. Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical
predictions.
Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to
2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis. Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
negative feedback proven ? !
I have just [in another thread] been lectured that the oceans contains no heat, as heat cannot be stored, so what is this whole paper about?
REPLY: Gosh Leif, I dunno. How’d that happen? Oceans = OBAHFC (One Big Assed Heat Flux Capacitor) 😉 – A
Interesting. You know, this is a good topic to discuss, but I’m a little frustrated, as I recently been trying to contact Professor Douglass about his work with regard to atmospheric temperature trends. See, at the Heartland Conference, he presented the latest update on that work, but the available presentation was about this paper, which is interesting in it’s own right, but well, uh, hm.
I have yet to hear back from the Professor, whose work is very interesting. I understand he has a response to the Santer paper in the works…
A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.
If so, debunks the idea [kicked around many times on this blog] of the oceans storing the heat of past high solar cycles to release it when cycles are low.
The question hinges on rates of uptake vs outlet. I certainly don’t think that the oceans act as a very long period capacitor, but they do have capacity.
We all know that thermal energy can be stored in any substance as sensible heat by raising its temperature. I think the real question is: “what is the discharge rate”? SW radiation going in is likely to have a different rate than LW going out. For example. On a stove I can heat a pot of water quickly by forcing max thermal energy into it. I can bring a pot of water to boil in 5 minutes or less. But it can take an hour or more for the water to dissipate the heat and return to room temperature. I realize this is not the same mechanism as our earthly energy balance, but I’m trying to illustrate.
I could visualize this happening with the oceans due to cloud cover modulation. Example: due to a forcing/change which I’ll leave undefined, we see less cloud cover around the tropics, and the “stove” goes from medium to high. Cloud cover returns, and we have an additional insulating blanket for the oceanic pot of water in addition to the longer discharge curve, while the stove goes back to medium or medium-low. It isn’t hard to envision some longer discharge periods there.
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:06) : But bound to be controversial, because that implies a low climate sensitivity.
Timetochooseagain
It surely implies that the earth does its own thing, our knowledge of how and why things happen is still rudimentary and that there is no hidden heat stored indefintely in the ocean ready to leap out at us unexpectedly.
Tonyb
Having tracked through and read several of the blogs listed under Global Climate Debate above I am struck by the ongoing theme there that places reliance on climate models we know to be flawed and on arbitrary “numbers” hammered out among politicians the majority of whom have trouble even understanding anything other than “vote for me” and who are led around by the nose by Civil Servants and Bureaucrats feeding them selective ‘facts’ and misinformation in sound bytes. I note that not one mentions the effect of overpopulation in all the “developing” nations and many of the “Aid” agency commentators seem to be driving an agenda aimed more at gathering more money for “wealth redistribution” and sustaining unsustainable populations than addressing the very real problems of desertification caused by stripping the land of trees for fuel, erosion and overgrazing. One blog speaks of ‘educating’ at the grass roots to bring better understanding of the problem. Yes, that may help, but it is not balanced by the policy makers in Australia, the UK, Europe and the US imposing expensive “Green” technologies and driving the cost of living through the roof in countries who are considered “bad climate abusers” – any Western “Developed” nation – by using the flawed “per capita” Carbon emmissions measurement. I believe that this is a false indicator since populations in the developed nations tend to be smaller and more aware of the impact of their development and use of land and sea than those in the “developing” world where carbon emmissions as astronomic but the sheer volume is masked by adjusting for “per capita”.
This paper on the effect of sea temperatures and heat “storage” is timeous, picking up on work that has been ongoing for decades but is largely ignored or dismissed by the present “Anthropogenic Climate CHange” lobby. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
My apologies, I omitted to mention that I found no mention anywhere of the impact of schemes such as the Yellow River Three Gorges Dam or the Soviet draining of the Caspian Sea. The Caspian area has been devastated and I have no doubt that the long term impact of the Yellow River scheme will be as devastating downstream of the dam.
Borehole pumping from subsurface water supplies and de-watering of deep mines in South Africa has lowered the water table dramarically in my lifetime and I note that there is no mention of the impact of this one desertification and the feed though of that into the climate either.
As usual the climate debate is being driven along very narrow lines which look at the problem in small segments without reference to the larger picture and the connectivity between all the components. The entire debate becomes intractably slewed as soon as politicians and civil servants get involved and break it down into media sound bytes for the purposes of winning votes and elections.
wattsupwiththat (00:00:58) :
It isn’t hard to envision some longer discharge periods there.
Such as circulation.
Mark
Hidden heat in the Oceans ? – just try swimming in the Ocean at say, 45 deg South during winter as compared with summer. That was only a 6 month variation, so I cannot see how a lot of heat can be stored over decades in the deep ocean.
True, the further away from the equator you are the more seasonal variance. But in the ITCZ region, there remains quite a bit of constancy.
TonyB (23:52:45) : Well, I don’t know about that, but one can indeed show fairly easily that such a short response time implies VERY insensitive climate-Hansen published some papers on how sensitivity is connected to climate response time, as has Lindzen.
And Douglass has published several papers which identify short response times in observational data (Pinatubo, annual cycles, etc.)-naturally that has generated some controversy. However, a lot of people come to different conclusions about the response time of climate-readers here may be familiar with the work of Steven Schwartz on this issue, which found fairly short response time (though not nearly as short as Douglass has been finding).
Interestingly, Nicola Scafetta thinks that the system may have 2 different characteristic time scales-one short like Douglass finds, and one a little longer than Schwartz finds:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/503939_2_merged_1208357713.pdf
Personally I suspect that the longer response time here is an artifact of the solar cycle, and probably the short response time is the “real” one. But I’m somewhat open minded about it.
Monk: “Civil Servants”? My experience, with some exceptions, is that the above named bureaucrats are neither civil nor of service. Not a rant, a sad observation. L
Is it just me , or does Fig 1 stop at about 1996?
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:06) :
A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.
If so, debunks the idea [kicked around many times on this blog] of the oceans storing the heat of past high solar cycles to release it when cycles are low.
As I posted previously, there is chart in the Climate4you website that shows the correlation between long wave radiation at the equator and temperature. This clearly shows that, in general, the temperature and radiation are anticorrelated. This supports your comment that the temperature is caused by the radiative imbalance rather than heat being stored in the sea during previous warming periods and then released. The only exception is the 1998 el nino and the months immediately before and after. During this period the radiation and temperature were correlated indicating that in this exceptional situation stored energy was released.
Repeating the point I made in a previous post. The chart shows that over the past 30 years the trend in radiation is slightly up. This is consistent with an increase in radiation due to a slightly warmer sea and completely inconsistent with a long term gradual reduction in long wave radiation due to greenhouse gases.
I severely doubt that the data used in these global ocean heat content estimates has a sufficient spatial density that you can trust the hi frequency variability in the records. Especially I would be extremely careful looking at the seasonal signal,. To estimate that globally then you need near perfect coverage. If you dont have that then it is obvious you would get a false seasonal signal.
To conclude: I am not impressed.
What kind of observational data for the TOA radiative balance for the period from the 50s to the 80s are they using to check their implied values?
Getting close to the ideas I have been promulgating for over a year now.
The solar input varies over century timescales, the rate of energy release from ocean to air varies over multidecadal timescales with the PDO as the largest component.
Those two interacting variables are not directly (but might be indirectly) linked and usually supplement or offset one another to some degree at any given moment.
The latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems occur virtually instantly in response to the net level of GLOBAL energy release from oceans to air at any given time. We can already see that in connection with the current stuttering El Nino.
Seasonal variations around the globe give the mix an extra stir.
I particularly like this bit:
“Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.”
That is a nice answer to those AGW knowalls who keep denigrating my material on the basis that I am not a professional scientist or on the basis that my articles depend on observations and reasoning rather than complex data and equations.
Glad to see someone correctly call it a radiation ‘imbalance’. Leif also has a point about heat storage- there is no heat in the oceans that rise to the surface. Heat accumulates at the surface, then diffuses. The wind draws some of this away. The sun is not powerful enough to warm the oceans, just the surface. I dive in open water, so this is my observation.
The link between ocean heat content and the Earth’s radiation balance arises because variations in the rate of energy release by the oceans then go on to change the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation patterns which in turn changes the speed of the hydrological cycle which in turn modulates the rate of energy loss to space.
Thus the air as a whole acts as a negative feedback neutralising variations in the rate of energy release from the oceans.
That is what keeps the entire system within narrow enough parameters to ensure that we retain our liquid oceans.
Weather and climate are just the day to day by products of that overall process.
It is all in the Oceans and the currents as suggested here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf
Warning: Dr. Svalgaard qualifies it as a ’junk science’ !
I have a question for Leif:
is there a correlation between the sun magnetic field rotation and induced electrical current in the salt water sea?
Can the physical currents (Golf stream) be explained by this phenomena?
The earth is “swimming” in a rotating magnetic field, and can be regarded as a
“one turn coil” (the sea) with iron core. That would explain the earth magnetic field as well.
If(!!) this is a “plausible” theory, how much energy transferred to the oceans?
Thanks.
Step by step the temple of knowledge is build.
I would like to see the graphs and data to be updated so we can see whats happening right now.
I don’t see any reason why the ocean might not store heat and release on a variety of timescales. Seawater stratifies quite strongly at depth and can retain differences in heat for a long time. That it does so is amply evidenced by the rise in sea level due to thermal expansion, as measured by satellite altimetry.
All three ‘independent’ assessments of ocean heat content underestimate the amount of energy the ocean has absorbed and retained. I proved this by calculating the amount of solar energy required to be retained in the oceans to cause them to expand the 5400Km^3=16mm in the 1993-2003 period apart from the rise due to ice melt etc. I believe the reason for this underestimation is due in part to the need to balance the energy books with the purported forcing due to co2, since their figures work out to 1.7W.m^2. The forcing was actually more like 4W/m^2 over the 1993-2003 period.
Leif Svalgaard checked and verified my result. If he feels that being ‘lectured in another thread that the oceans don’t retain heat’ disproves this, maybe he should reflect on the fact that the maths he checked and verified says otherwise, and also that just because someone repeatedly says something, it don’t make it so.
Well, according to this paper, from 2001 onward we are actually LOSING in the space more or less 0,25 W/m2 of energy….
Strange, there’s should be that man-made carbon-kryptonite space shield to seal our atmosphere…
Maybe the Aliens have opened some breakthroughs in it? 😉
In front of an IPCC estimated AGW of 1,6 W/m2, this means that our “shield” has started leaking about 25% of it….
The issue of ‘heat storage’ needs clarification in relation to the oceans.
It is clear that the oceans have a certain temperature overall notwithstanding internal variability.
I submit that that temperature is set by the length of delay between solar shortwave reaching the Earth’s oceans and longwave radiation leaving the Earth’s oceans.
I also submit that the length of that delay is overwhelmingly set by the oceans and not significantly by the composition of the air.
Over time the oceans slow down or accelerate that transmission of energy for reasons not yet determined. In that process the ocean temperatures rise and fall slightly and the rate of energy transfer to the air varies up and down slightly.
I do not accept that it is a simple matter of the main oceanic contribution being constant with only the surface waters involved in the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air. The apparent 30/60 year cycle displayed by the PDO does not correlate with any observed changes affecting the air alone.
The sun does warm the oceans. The sun is the only energy supply if one ignores heat from the mantle. I often see confusion between the power of solar shortwave to penetrate the oceans deeply and the inability of infra red to penetrate beyond a few microns.