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.
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.
Stephen Wilde (02:09:19) : Thus the air as a whole acts as a negative feedback neutralising variations in the rate of energy release from the oceans.
Agreed. Maybe if there were no trade winds or currents, the oceans would get more warmth further down. But the warmth at the surface is drawn away by circulation.
wattsupwiththat (00:00:58) :
“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” —
”
Since the ARGO network has been operating we have not seen much change in average surface temps of the Ocean. Nor have we seen much change in the Deep Ocean Temp, although we dont have any reliable long term records.
One of the reasons there has not been much publicity about ARGO results is probably because it hasn’t produced the expected results as modeled by the IPCC, which encouraged the UN to establish the network in the first place.
can we conclude that the system is in a balanced situation.
Its one thing to heat a pot of water from the bottom and boil it in 5 minutes try boiling it by holding the element over the top and give a similar radient temp as the sun say 1400 w/sq m and see how hot the water gets. The absorption time seems to be the the same as the release time. It’s an interesting experiment, change the depth of water in the saucepan and observe. Model the ocean in a saucepan : probably give you better results than some of the IPCC models !!
By my back of the envelope calculation the average ocean Temp is not much more that 6 deg. C. (90% of the ocean is deep ocean with temp of about 4.5 to 5 Deg.C) insulated by a few km of rock and mantle from the planet core with temps of several 1000 deg. What will be the convectional transfer from the planet core to the oceans. It must be very small.
If the oceans are ‘storing heat” in the tropics as a net gain from the day /night radiative balance then it will be transported by currents to a midlatitude where the balance is negative wit ocean currents at say 2 to 4 knots it will only take 2 or 3 months for the stored heat to reach those latitudes.
If the Oceans were storing heat we would have seen signs of it by now.
Im much more impressed by the recent post on the natural regulator function of the tropical storm belt.
I should make it clear as to why the effect of the air on the oceans is always a negative feedback.
If the oceans release energy faster then the changes in the air accelerate it’s removal to space thus limiting the warming of the air.
If the oceans release energy more slowly then the changes in the air seek to pull more energy from the oceans thus limiting the cooling of the air.
The flow is always sun to oceans to air to space. It cannot be reversed. Only the speed can be changed.
The systems in the air can only push energy into space or pull it from the oceans. They cannot pull energy from space or push it into the oceans.
All this is explained in tiresome detail in my collection of articles at climaterealists.com for anyone who has the patience.
The relevance to CO2 is that the same mechanism neutralises the warming effect of all increases in GHGs whether from more CO2, water vapour or anything else.
Dr. Douglas: Newman et al (2003)…
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
…and Zhang et al (1997), who were the first to calculate the PDO…
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/zwb1997.pdf
…determined that the PDO was a lagged effect of ENSO. It then seems as though you’re arguing indirectly that ENSO and TOA radiation imbalance correlate and that the low frequency component of ENSO caused the climate shifts. Both make sense, but let’s look at the latter.
You wrote, “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.”
Smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomalies indicate that the frequency and magnitude of El Nino and La Nina events vary and that the positive and negative phases of ENSO have the same time periods that you described:
http://i31.tinypic.com/bezz8h.jpg
The use of ENSO in a discussion of OHC makes much more sense to me. During an El Nino, the eastern tropical Pacific discharges heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and during the La Nina, the eastern tropical Pacific recharges the ocean heat by absorbing heat from the atmosphere. Tropical TLT anomalies and NINO3.4 SST anomalies correlate quite well, as could be expected:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2isid84.jpg
However, during the El Nino phase, Pavlakis et al (2008)…
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
…illustrated that downwelling shortwave radiation (and for the tropical Pacific it’s “the component of the net heat into the ocean with the largest magnitude”) increases over the Pacific Warm Pool, and the increase in DSR is significant, 25 watts/sq meter during the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2435kbb.jpg
That leads me to this thought. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I’m presently bouncing around the idea that El Nino events may actually result in an increase in OHC. And if the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events exceed the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events, which they have since 1976, OHC will rise, which it has. During the 50s through mid-70s, the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events exceeded the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events, and OHC declined.
I’ll write that up as a post in the next few days and see what the feedback is. I suspect that many will disagree.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “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.”
Two things: On whose TSI data are you basing the assumption that “solar input varies over century timescales?” Are you still using Lean at al?
Second, the PDO does not reflect SST or OHC. It reflects the PATTERN of SST anomalies for only the North Pacific, north of 20N. It’s ENSO that discharges and recharges OHC, not the PDO.
Guess this reinforces we need to prepare for the cold ahead. As the sun hits another lengthy spotless streak the signs couldnt be clearer. Sitting in the sun here in Australia today – it used to make you hot, now its simply tepid if that. As the poles are on a growing trend again I guess this means if this speeds up Tasmania will become part of the mainland again and so will Papua New Guinea
Lindsay H. (03:50:00) :
can we conclude that the system is in a balanced situation.
Not really. We may be at the peak of a long term cycle, and the downslope of ocean heat content is slow at the moment, but it’s there. Josh WIllis, the cheif ARGO data specialist, admitted to an online magazine that there had been a “slight cooling” since 2003. He later recanted that in a NASA article by saying it was level. I wonder why. It should be noted that his original comment was made *after* the ‘correction’ of the data which showed a steeper decline.
Its one thing to heat a pot of water from the bottom and boil it in 5 minutes try boiling it by holding the element over the top and give a similar radient temp as the sun say 1400 w/sq m and see how hot the water gets.
And don’t forget to introduce surface mixing by wave action, and deeper mixing by tidal action. I love kitchen corner experiments, but you have to simulate all important and relevant contributing factors to get a meaningful result.
If the Oceans were storing heat we would have seen signs of it by now.
We have. The satellite altimetry of sea levels is evidence of it. The sea level has risen substantially due to thermal expansion since 1993 when accurate satellite measurements began. It has slowed down since the sun went quieter in 2005.
Stephen Wilde (03:22:31) :
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.
Excellent analysis as always.
I suspect the rate of transmission is affected by the overall switching between modes of energy absorption, and modes of energy release. These take place at all timescales:
Diurnal modes affecting near surface waters due to difference in air temp between night and day.
Seasonal modes due to varying insolation. This will average across the globe, but is an important effect on an annual northern/southern hemisphere basis.
Decadal modes, depending on the state of the solar cycle. The peak to trough effect of the sun on ocean heat is masked by the fact that the el nino events are stronger near solar minimum. They are the manifestation of the ocean going into heat release mode following the strong absorption of heat to deeper levels during the height of the solar cycle. This is why the apparent signal in the temperature record is only 0.15C or so.
Multidecadal modes. These are due to runs of high or low solar cycles. My calcs show the heat is stored to at least 700 meteres, probably much more in places. My supporting evidence, apart from my calcs on thermal expansion (verified by Leif Svalgaard), is that the average temperature increase of the top 700m of ocean would be 0.15C from 1993 to 2003 for the energy retention I calculated. This is consistent with a surface increase of 0.3C (observed) and a roughly linear reduction of temperature to the thermocline of the ocean from the surface. (Also observed).
Century modes. The 10be record shows that solar variation can occur on long time scales. There is a point of balance with insolation at which the oceans neither gain nor lose heat in the longer term. My model suggest the oceans were pretty stable heat content wise from 1850 to 1935, notwithstanding the 30 year up’s and downs helped along by the variation in solar cycle amplitudes. Since then, they warmed strongly, leading to the sea level rise we have winessed.
Whoever told you that, Leif, weren’t all there.
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:44) :
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
A somewhat pedantic point of physicists is that one refers to heat as energy during transfer only. If one looks at the oceans as being at a “dead state” temperature, then one does not see the oceans as a source, but rather only as a sink. In another context one must see the oceans as a source and the polar regions as a sink, howeve. I’d like to know, Leif, what was the context of this other thread?
KimW @00:21:09, that is at the surface; go deeper and the temeprature varies less. The thermoclines move down in the Summer and retreat in the winter.
@Lindsay H. (03:50:00) :
While there has been progress in describing decadal variability in temperature trends, there is always that pesky centennial temperature rise of ~ 0.6 degrees per century which has been with us since the Maunder Minimum. That’s the one I find interesting. Could it have anything to do with cold, deep ocean water being replenished during Grand Minima then slowly mixing with surface water?
I have thoght for a long time that part of the seeming chaos of climate occurs because there are many feedback loops with extremely different characteristic times. In this paper the authors argue for a short characteristic time in ocean heat transfer; but we know for certain that the “overturning” time of the oceans must be thousands of years. By overturning I mean the process in which bottom water is created in polar regions, sinks, and eventually returns to the surface in much lower latitudes. How much energy can one store in this loop? Well, bottom water might vary by only a few degrees C at present, but we are talking about enormous volumes of water, so the energy stored might be significant. On the other hand ocean surface currents, and internal waves, have characteristic times of a few years to perhaps a decade at most. So here are two loops with very different characteristic times. BY the way, the long period loop here also has some impact on CO2 because bottom water, when returning to the surface, warms, expels CO2, and precipitates calcite.
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:44) : REPLY: Gosh Leif, I dunno. How’d that happen? Oceans = OBAHFC (One Big Assed Heat Flux Capacitor) 😉 – A
No wonder that the ocean can store heat – its just shifted to a different time frame!
wiki: “The flux capacitor, which consisted of a regularly squared compartment with three flashing lights arranged as a “Y”, was described by Doc as “what makes time travel possible”. “
The oceans are not well mixed. They have many layers that differ in temperature and salinity with sharp transitions between layers. Submariners and whales use these channels to listen and send sounds over thousands of miles. It’s quite conceivable that heat would be trapped in one or more of these layers and persist there for long periods of time. Since the top 15 m of the ocean contains as much heat as the entire atmosphere, a layer doesn’t have to be very thick to have a significant effect on the temperature of the atmosphere should it suddenly enter a “pipeline” to the surface where it could dump its heat.
I find it interesting that anyone believes they can prove the oceans are warming based on sea level rise. How much of the sea level rise is based on new dam construction? According to the paper by Chao, Wu and Li in Science 11 apr 08 virtually all the variations in sea level rise can be attributed to land sequestration.
Then there is the matter of biomass. How much water is released to the system by deforestation? First you have the water in the vegetation to take into account, typically 60-80% water by weight. Then you have the fact that trees are replaced by grasses which reduces the depth that water can soak into the soil. During the deforestation you also have soil erosion that flows to the bottoms of lakes and rivers decreasing their holding capicity.
Then there is land use issues. Draining of swamps for construction. The use of ground water. The Ogallala aquifer system has had water level decline by as much as 75 feet in some areas since the 1950s. Some areas have had a 30 feet decline in just the ten years from 1996 – 2006. This is just one aquifer system in the world of hundreds? thousands?
Once we have a handle on how much water is being added/subtracted from the system then how will we measure the sea level rise? Tide gauges or satellites? Tide gauges will require a firm handle on tectonic plate movements and land rising/falling. There seems to be some indication that depletion of ground water causes a change in the rate of rising/falling so there is reason to doubt this has remained constant. Satellites then? Is the Earth contracting or expanding and why? This would seem important if you are going to measure from the center of it to determine sea levels. Shen, Chen and Li in the AGU fall meeting stated the Earth is expanding at the rate of about 0.6mm per year for the last ten years. Is this a constant rate? does it always expand or does it also contract?
Once you have solved all these issues and want to determine the temperature of the oceans by thermal expansion equations then you can probably get a good idea of ocean heat content. Until then my view is it would be a better idea to get out your thermometer.
I am not quibling with the main conclusions of this paper but in a
2008 Melbourne presentation:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
I have already shown that abrupt long-term changes in the Earth’s rotation rate precede abrupt changes in the PDO, from positive to negative and vice versa, by roughly six year (see slide 28 of 44). I have also shown that these abrupt changes in the Earth’s rotation rate closley match abrupt changes in the motion of the Sun about the Solar System’s Barycentre (see slide 37 of 44). hence, I have no problem predicting the approximate date of the next change in the PDO (to positive). It will occur around ~ 2018 (=/- a few years
either side).
Hence, the following quote from this paper about the unpredictability of the flips in the PDO is completely false.
quote:
“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.”
No they actually occur because of long-term changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, that are being driven from outside the Earth. Why are most of you ignoring this fundamental result?
These results are now published in a compendium of papers in Russian and are available (In English) from me upon request.
Correction – that should have read ~ 2014 – 2018 (+/- a few years), Sorry.
I’ve seen little discussion or estimates of the amount of energy that gets converted into work (the Physics 101 definition), rather than just being input and then exhausted from the earth climate system.
I refer to the considerable horsepower that goes into making the oceans or the atmosphere circulate, or the storage of that energy chemically in a giant redwood or an acre of corn. Snow landing on a glacier stores potential energy that is released slowly over decades.
This conversion to kinetic and chemical energy doesn’t show up on any thermostat, and I’m unaware that it’s a component in any climate model, yet it’s there and it has to be a huge amount.
This may not be the secret hidden heat sink that some modelers seek, but it’s surely a part of it, and can’t continue to be ignored.
steve (06:17:22) :
I find it interesting that anyone believes they can prove the oceans are warming based on sea level rise. How much of the sea level rise is based on new dam construction? According to the paper by Chao, Wu and Li in Science 11 apr 08 virtually all the variations in sea level rise can be attributed to land sequestration.
Just togive some relative sense of scale, the Three gorges dam is around 30 cubic km once filled. The thermal expansion of the oceans is around 5400 cubic km and that’s just 1993-2003.
The IPCC bases it’s estimate of the proportion of sea level rise due to thermal expansion on estimates of the meltoff (mainly from Greenland and Antarctic peninsula, plus various glaciers), the land use factors you have pointed out, and isostatic rebound, all subtracted from the total rise.
If you disagree with them, fair enough, they have some other stuff wrong too as we know. However, you have to start somewhere, and ‘sticking in the thermometer’ isn’t infallible either, as Anthony, Josh Willis and others have discovered.
I have weighed the balance of evidence through moderately extensive study, and reached my own judgement. The model I have built from that seems to tie together several strands concerning SST, ocean heat content, changing sunspot counts, changes in length of day, the PDO and AMO, changing incoming shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation, and some other stuff.
If you can do better with your thermometer, get cracking and feed us the data.
I have to ask a stupid question and I don’t have much time to think it out. Sorry. Why do we talk about heat “stored in the ocean” rather than heated (ocean) water (vast amounts) being moved around (and up and down) by both ocean and air currents?
It is the concept of “stored warmth” that bothers me. “Greenhouse” suggests “stored warmth” because of “that man-made carbon-kryptonite space shield” (thanks, dario). Bear with me as I check a text. If anything is stored in the ocean, it seems to me it should be cold, dense, salty water created by the freezing at the poles. The colder the water, the denser (gravity pulls it downward); the more saline the water, the lower the freezing point. “The seafloor under ice is the coldest, saltiest water around”, which leads to the seasonal thermocline (halocline, pynocline, nutricline) and beyond that the permanent thermocline. “A force must be applied to move a dense medium upward into a less dense medium.” The forces are gravity, tides, especially with mid-ocean ridges and sea mounts, and wind-driven currents. Even though this paper talks about a top-of-atmosphere flux indicating regime change in earth’s temperature, does any of this lead toward understanding changes in the “stored cold”.?
“At least three times in earth’s history the bottom waters of the ocean have been considerably warmer than they are today.”
I continue to abhor the idea of Greenhouse. No one who thinks of a Greenhouse can possibly, at the same time with the active neural network (this is very important), think of “radiation imbalance”. The latter is the concept about which scientists and non-scientists alike must educate the populace if we are to have any hope of stopping the CO2 kryptonite space shield nonsense.
par5, The Great lakes are always 4C at the bottom. At the surface, it gets warm in the summer and obviously freezes in the winter. The thermocline descends, at least in Eastern Lake Ontario, to about 70-80 feet. If the year was longer then, the thermocline would have longer to descend. However, it isn’t so that 90 feet, the temperature enver changes.
This does, however, give some idea of how the oceans heat.
Lindsay H. (03:50:00) :
…Its one thing to heat a pot of water from the bottom and boil it in 5 minutes try boiling it by holding the element over the top and give a similar radient temp as the sun say 1400 w/sq m and see how hot the water gets. The absorption time seems to be the the same as the release time…
…By my back of the envelope calculation the average ocean Temp is not much more that 6 deg. C. (90% of the ocean is deep ocean with temp of about 4.5 to 5 Deg.C) insulated by a few km of rock and mantle from the planet core with temps of several 1000 deg. What will be the convectional transfer from the planet core to the oceans. It must be very small.
If the oceans are ’storing heat” in the tropics as a net gain from the day /night radiative balance then it will be transported by currents to a midlatitude where the balance is negative wit ocean currents at say 2 to 4 knots it will only take 2 or 3 months for the stored heat to reach those latitudes.
The absorption time from radiation is probably no better determined than the release time, but it is unlikely the two are equal. If the atmosphere is clear and the ocean calm, then absorption takes place over a depth range of several hundred meters, and the release takes place over less than a meter of depth range. But if there are waves and wind then the release is quite different by orders of magnitude. And, if Bob Tisdale, were on this post he’d undoubtedly bring up ENSO, in which storage and release takes place over many years, and the storage and release are not symmetric.
Bottom water in the Atlantic is about -2C and in the Pacific is perhaps +1 or +2. The coldest bottom water comes from the Arctic regions in the Atlantic sector. We do not have much data about historical temperature changes in bottom water, but we figure from oxygen isotope data that bottom water has been as warm as +15C at times in the past 50my.
Heat flow from the Earth’s interior has little direct effect on climate in the short term because it is quite puny; however, people have proposed that beneath the isolation of an ice cap, heat flow into the floor of the Arctic ocean might cause this ocean to overturn, open polynyas on the surface, and end an ice age–speculative but interesting.
Ninderthana (06:25:06) :
they actually occur because of long-term changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, that are being driven from outside the Earth. Why are most of you ignoring this fundamental result?
These results are now published in a compendium of papers in Russian and are available (In English) from me upon request.
I’d like a copy (In english). rog at tallbloke dot net.
Thanks
Kevin Kilty (05:20:53) :
I’d like to know, Leif, what was the context of this other thread?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/#comment-172069
I think a lot of the resistance to the idea of the oceans storing heat on a long term basis, is because of the AGW idea of ‘heat in the pipeline’ from the greenhouse effect.
The air doesn’t heat the oceans, it’s the other way round, so we can forget that daft notion. However the heat in the pipeline is real enough. It is solar derived heat, and we should be grateful for it, because if the sun goes into a funk like it did at the start of the 1800’s, we’ll be glad that it previously charged the ‘oceanic capacitor’ with a run of high solar cycles.
Kevin Kilty (05:20:53) :
A somewhat pedantic point of physicists is that one refers to heat as energy during transfer only.
Although you find this pedantic, I beleive that we all communicate better when terms are well defined and used in an accurate manner. “Heat” and “energy” are well defined, but the misuse of the term “heat” when “energy” is meant is rampant. See the phrase “ocean heat content”.
Mike McMillan (06:32:40) :
I’ve seen little discussion or estimates of the amount of energy that gets converted into work (the Physics 101 definition), rather than just being input and then exhausted from the earth climate system.
This may not be the secret hidden heat sink that some modelers seek, but it’s surely a part of it, and can’t continue to be ignored.
The bottom line is that heat in = heat out, more or less.
What the internal elements of the system get up to in between is a fascinating study, but doesn’t affect the overall equation governed by the laws of thermodynamics in the (very) long term.
However, you are right to point it up, because a failure to appreciate the variety of ways in which the biosphere, oceans and atmosphere and the Earth itself shift heat around, hiding it from the surface temperature record, is in large measure responsible for the misconceptions of oversimplyfudging climatologists and physicists alike.
par5 (02:00:48)
“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 oceans, just the surface.”
The oceans surface waters (~ 100 m) are directly warmed by solar radiation.
By their very nature radiative waming and cooling processes are very rapid when you are talking about multi-year time scales.
Despite the hourly, daily and annual changes in radiative losses and gains
to the (tropical) oceans heat content, you can still talk about a long term average heat content. It is the varaition of this long-term average heat content of the upper surfaces of the (tropical) oceans that is in question.
One factor none of you are seeming to consider is the up welling deep cool ocean water. It is well know that up welling of this cool water has an significant impact up long-term ocean temperatures, independent of the
instantaneous radiative heat balance.
Long-term changes in the up welling of cool deep ocean water (aka the PDO) goven the level of long-term radiative losses from the ocean surface and indirectly the long-term changes in the OLR.
The significant role of the PDO argued for by this paper is significant in relation to the role of the Sun. This is because evidence is accumulating that the Lunar Nodal Cycle is one of the key drivers of the PDO.
During late April/early May this year there was a good paper, a fascinating and informative discussion and many relevant, authoritative links about the PDO on WUWT here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/misunderstandings-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation (aka http://tinyurl.com/mt5vwu ).
It seems that it is well established that the PDO is now in its negative phase and that this means a colder climate for North America.
In a paper published in March this year, Dr. Ichiro Yasuda, Professor, Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, showed that the Luna Nodal Cycle is a key driver of the PDO.
The citation is: Yasuda, I. (2009), ‘The 18.6-year period moon-tidal cycle in Pacific Decadal Oscillation reconstructed from tree-rings in western North America’, Geophysical Research. Letters, 36, L05605, doi:10.1029/2008GL036880.
Here is the Abstract:
“Time-series of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reconstructed from tree-rings in Western North America is found to have a statistically significant periodicity of 18.6- year period lunar nodal tidal cycle; negative (positive) PDO tends to occur in the period of strong (weak) diurnal tide. In the 3rd and 5th (10th, 11th and 13rd) year after the maximum diurnal tide, mean-PDO takes significant negative (positive) value, suggesting that the Aleutian Low is weak (strong), western-central North Pacific in 30–50N is warm (cool) and equator-eastern rim of the Pacific is cool (warm). This contributes to climate predictability with a time-table from the astronomical tidal cycle.”
The last LNC maximum happened on September 16, 2006. According to Prof Yasuda’s finding, the PDO should now be taking a significant negative value, as is being found. The climate consequences are therefore as expected.
There is substantial evidence that the LNC is a significant contributor to our planet’s climate dynamics. I include a carefully written and illustrated explanation of the LNC and review a lot of the published literature about its contribution to climate dynamics in my paper “The Sun’s role in regulating the Earth’s climate dynamics” published in the Journal of Energy and Environment Vol 20 No 1 2009. A copy of my paper and the new GRL one by Prof Yasuda is in the files section of the site.
Amongst other things I wrote:
“The ocean currents generated by the northward movement of the tidal bulge, in conjunction with the rotation of the Earth through the bulges in the normal manner creating our experience of the tides, brings warmish equatorial water to the Arctic accelerating the warming that had being going on there because of other forms of solar activity as discussed below.
The LNC has maximum effect at higher latitudes, resulting in higher sea levels at these latitudes. It creates tidal currents resulting in diapycnal mixing, bringing the warmer equatorial waters into the Arctic. The LNC is therefore a major determinant of Arctic climate dynamics, influencing long term fluctuations in Arctic ice. As a result, it is a key driver of European climate.”
The LNC is but one of the many ways in which the Sun most likely regulates our climate. The Sun’s role in speeding up or slowing down the Earth’s rotation is another as there is a rather well established relationship between decadal variations in rotation and climate. (Briefly, a decadal rotation decrease (increase) results in planetary cooling (warming)) with a lag of about 6 years. 6 years ago rotation was slowing down.
It is to be noted that it is most likely that the Sun’s impact on our climate dynamics is greatest because of the interaction between the several solar variables than because of any one of those variables on their own.
There is also a very good paper accompanied by useful discussion and web links about the LNC on WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/#more-7965
(aka http://tinyurl.com/mrjq9e )
Lief:
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.
I dunno Lief … the paragraph says “to the oceans” .. not “from” the oceans. I’m not up on it, but maybe you could shed some light on it .. .the rate of heat transfer mechanisms … energy in as light [transformed into heat] vs energy out as heat by convection, conduction and evaporation.
If the ocean is incapable of storing heat, then there can be no long-term temperature gradients.
So, if you take the oceans out of the equations for changes in climate, then you turn around and take the sun out totally, a paradox is created.
Before man burned fossil fuels, there was no climate change.
The clergy saying prayers in front of advancing glaciers in the Little Ice Age and the ancient man they found frozen in the Alps are fakes.
Wolly Mammoths are elaborate hoaxes.
The Vikings in Greenland and Newfoundland didn’t perish from crop failures due to lack of growing season, they drank too much beer and passed out in snow and died of hypothermia.
All the glaciers we have were there since the beginning of time, and once they melt, they cannot reform.
Climate change is impossible.
There can be only climate variation in a finite range.
The Earth is restored to it’s pre-scientific flatness.
We have new green jobs for lots of people:
Stone cutters for temples and statues of idols.
How could there be a positive feedback from c02? It takes a lot of energy to heat oceans, which have a higher heat capacity that air. In other words, the energy required to heat the oceans by 1C is far greater than the energy required to heat the troposhere by 1C. Longwave radiation doesn’t penetrate the oceans.
“Bob Tisdale (04:19:09) :
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “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.”
Two things: On whose TSI data are you basing the assumption that “solar input varies over century timescales?” Are you still using Lean at al?”
I have noted the revised TSI data from Leif amongst others. Although the range of variation is much reduced the general pattern of rising and falling over the centuries remains. In any event I see TSI as only a proxy for solar input to the Earth’s system and not necessarily definitive
“Second, the PDO does not reflect SST or OHC. It reflects the PATTERN of SST anomalies for only the North Pacific, north of 20N. It’s ENSO that discharges and recharges OHC, not the PDO”
I have previously accepted that PDO is just a statistical artifact arising from ENSO events but have also noted a real phenomenon behind it. Since that real phenomenon is not adequately described by the term PDO I have suggested the term ‘Wildean Ocean Cycles’ Thank you for the opportunity to put that forward again.
Anyway it is the net behaviour of all the oceans combined together with variations in solar activity that discharges and recharges OHC not just ENSO.
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.
So what’s the connection to PDO? It seems to me that they are implying both a “large annual term” as well as some kind of longer term process. Now that longer term process may have nothing to do with oceans “storing the heat of past high solar cycles to release it when cycles are low.” But I don’t think the “large annual term” is the whole story here.
In my continuing explorations into the mysteries of the global temperature time series, I’ve recently determined that it can be decomposed into two components, one having a high Hurst exponent (long time persistence), and the other having a low Hurst exponent (anti-persistence, or mean reversion). The latter property fits with the notion of a “large annual term” because it shows the climate system rapidly responding to inputs (shocks) by quickly moving back toward a mean. The former — a component with a high Hurst exponent — is characteristic of cycles on decadal and multidecadal time frames, like (but not necessarily the same) as the PDO.
So I do not necessarily see an inconsistency between “a large annual” term along with a longer, low frequency, process at work. Now whether that longer process is the ocean releasing heat stored from higher solar cycles, I haven’t a clue. In fact, I’d think rather not, at least in the sense I’m thinking here of longer term “cycles,” since storing up heat from high solar cycles, only to release it during low solar cycles, would lead to a non-cycle (stasis) in the long term “second order” process.
But don’t worry, Leif. While I may not buy into the “storing up heat from high solar cylces, only to rlease it during low solar cycles” argument (yet? — my mind is never closed to new data), I can still see the sun at work in the global temperature time series (in the component with the high Hurst exponent mentioned above). 🙂
FAO uses LOD (Length of the day) to succesfully predict sea temperatures in order to forecast fish catches:
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&pg=PP6&lpg=PP6&dq=fao+fish+catches+lod&source=bl&ots=eeMbbzxmCt&sig=LOTxBsFpDgQRKtMq5ROMiwEbFS0&hl=es&ei=XtSCSuWFBNWLtgeLnK3WCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=fao%20fish%20catches%20lod&f=false
Leif – Tallbloke asked you something on an earlier thread that, as a non-scientist, I would be interested in your answer. I direct the question to you as you obviously spend a good portion of your time pondering such questions. It went like this …
oops – didn’t close the blockquote properly – tallbloke only responsible for the first paragraph
cal (01:31:27) :
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.
I see a chart at this URL,
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Outgoing long wave radiation above Equator
But rather than anticorrelation, I see a phase lag of about one year in the presense of longer period variation. The air temperature peaks, and this is followed about a year later by a peak in the LW radiation. Note that the graphs do not actually cover the same portion of the globe, a lot of the western Pacific is excluded from the LW data. At any rate, phase is notoriously difficult to unwind in time series and so determining the phase relationship as a function of period is not yet clear to me, but a cursory look seems the relationship is the reverse of what you claim.
Please look at this curve, a forecast to 2099, and see where we are at now:
http://www.giurfa.com/fao_temps.jpg
The virus “GWCC-1998” (global warming/climate change) has suddenly attacked one of WUWT most serious blogger:
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?
I am sure it was a joke.
Re: solar and barycenter. A faster oscillating event has a pretty good chance of occurring simultaneously with a slower oscillating event and yet have no connection whatsoever between the two. Mechanism people. Mechanism.
Re this thread: Very satisfying. Very satisfying indeed.
coaldust (06:54:45) :
Kevin Kilty (05:20:53) :
A somewhat pedantic point of physicists is that one refers to heat as energy during transfer only.
Although you find this pedantic, I beleive that we all communicate better when terms are well defined and used in an accurate manner. “Heat” and “energy” are well defined, but the misuse of the term “heat” when “energy” is meant is rampant. See the phrase “ocean heat content”.
I agree with coaldust. This AGWers are trying to change even the meaning of the physical concepts. The thing is quite clear, although many are trying of confusing it:
Heat is a process quantity.
Internal energy is a state function.
Systems cannot store process quantities and no system can have a “content” of a process quantity.
You can store energy into a system like internal energy.
People saying “Heat content in the oceans” are misusing the real physical concept of heat. The correct form is “Total of energy stored in oceans”, or simply “Content of internal energy in oceans”.
The abstract ends with: “These climate shifts limit climate predictability.
Not necessarily. First of all, while Douglass and Knox position their paper in terms of Swanson and Tsonis, who treat climate shifts are part of a reorganization of a chaotically dynamic system, that is not the same thing as saying that the climate shifts are unpredictable. However, I think the jury is still out on the mechanism proposed by Swanson and Tsonis to explain climate shifts. Since these are all efforts to explain long lived, low frequency processes like the PDO, I’m not sure that any mechanism can be demonstrated completely with reference only to data from the instrumental period. After all, what looks like a sharp structural break in the PDO may simply be the transition point in cycle that lasts 50 to 60 years, a cycle that may have other, shorter term cycles imposed on top of it, and on top of all that maybe an essentially random or mean reverting variation on a short term (monthly to annual) basis. With cycles of this duration, I think the jury stays out until we have a mechanism that also explains the evidence for the PDO in the proxy data record.
In any case, Swanson and Tsonsis don’t seem to agree on what their research means:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/natural-climate-shifts-swanson-v-tsonis/
“But don’t worry, Leif. While I may not buy into the “storing up heat from high solar cylces, only to rlease it during low solar cycles” argument (yet? — my mind is never closed to new data), I can still see the sun at work in the global temperature time series (in the component with the high Hurst exponent mentioned above)”
Basil,
Think “storing up cold” instead of “storing up heat.” The cold gets stored in deep ocean reservoirs during Grand Minima by cold salty water released during the freezing process. Then it mixes with the warm surface water more quickly at first, then more slowly as the cold reservoirs are depleted. This results in a long term warming trend which will continue until the next Grand Minimum.
“Just togive some relative sense of scale, the Three gorges dam is around 30 cubic km once filled. The thermal expansion of the oceans is around 5400 cubic km and that’s just 1993-2003.”
That’s interesting tallbloke but hardly relative to all the land sequestration of water involved. If you have the scientific evidence to show new dam construction is minor when measuring sea level variations then perhaps you should publish a rebuttal to the paper I cited which was peer reviewed and in a reputable journal. As far as the sea level rise as attributed by the IPCC I don’t see anything about deforestation. I don’t see anything about ground water use. Perhaps this is because they are too small to matter, or perhaps this is because they are too difficult to measure. I would lean towards too difficult to measure. I also see nothing about Earth expansion. Can you point out what expansion rate they use?
I understand there are problems with direct temperature measurements. That doesn’t mean that we should have to accept a different flawed method. Telling me to go prove it is a weak response and shows you have no real answers to my points. It is enough that I have pointed out several significant factors that are being ignored.
rbateman (07:31:52) :
We have new green jobs for lots of people: Stone cutters for temples and statues of idols.
Things are worst than previously thought.
As I have just written in another post:
But this issue of climate change and/or global warming has become a real psychic pandemia. It should be analyzed and treated as a health problem and as such, to seek to stop its propagation. If you do not do something in this respect you will suffer the consequences of it. This is a serious matter for you. We know this as foreing bloggers at WUWT and expectators of this peculiar madness.
Don’t you think so?
steve (06:17:22) :
Good points about the issues with sea level rise. Warmists cite sea level rise as absolute and unqualified proof that the seas are gaining heat. They seem to allow for no other physical causes for apparent sea level rise than thermal expansion.
Is it true that oceanic bottomwaters were as warm as 15°C during the end of the Cretaceous?
Errata: where written “expectators” read spectators. Thanks.
In the context of ocean heat content and the radiation balance, it may be worth pointing out that outgoing longwave radiation from the surface climbed by 4W/m^2 from around the turn of the millenium, and has stayed at that elevated value since.
This matches the 4/m^2 my calculations on the solar/cloud forcing on the ocean from 1993-2003 quite well in terms of magnitude. It looks like the oceans went into heat release mode after the solar cycle 23 peak in ~2002. This led to some el nino’s and then falls in OHC and then SST from 2005.
I speculate that the normal decadal fluctuation rate of OLR has stayed high for longer than usual because of the non-appearance of solar cycle 24 in any active sense. It will be interesting to see the rate at which the curve decays, and whether this seems to be proportional to the drop in average SST’s which started in 2005.
That should tell us something about the extent to which the oceans store energy, and the mode in which it releases it again.
par5 (02:00:48) :
“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.”
This may be apropos of nothing but this comment and the topic in general reminded me of a story one of my college math professors told. The class was differential equations and we were discussing heat transfer. He took a break from the hardcore math for a moment to tell an anecdote about some research he had been involved with to measure the amount of heat that was coming out of the core of the earth. Seems they couldn’t simply put a thermometer in the dirt at the surface of the earth because it would be subject to influences from the sun. The yearly heat pulses traveled slowly through the earth and were measurable as basically sinusoidal signals every few feet. So they needed some place that was not influenced by the sun. The place they chose was the bottom of Lake Superior because it is so deep (1000 ft in some places) that the sun never reaches the bottom. However, they still needed to subtract out the temperature of the water in order to accurately isolate the heat coming from the earth. So they put thermometers on the bottom that measured the water temp. What they found was that the temperature was nearly constant at 40F (or something really cold like that) for nearly all year until about December. Then all of the sudden the temperature spiked up (though, I can’t remember how big the spike was in degrees, so “spike” is a relative term). It turns out it took it that long for the heat from the summer to make its way down to the bottom. (Note: this was 25 years ago so I may not be remembering everything correctly and I might be leaving out some context — but that is the gist of it as I remember it).
So, for whatever it’s worth (and maybe it’s not much) this anecdote suggests to me that maybe heat does not all dissipate from the surface. I know next to nothing about fluid dynamics, but I would guess that in a huge roiling cauldron like the oceans or the Great Lakes you might see some complicated and unexpected phenomenon happening.
Stephen Wilde (07:35:38) :
Bob Tisdale (04:19:09) :
—————————-
Bob,
What do I have to say to get you to acknowledge that the PDO is more than just an artifact of ENSO?
Stephen is on to something here. Climate cycles are not just driven by oceans. More heat gets moved around the earth by atmospheric circulation than by ocean circulation, and faster, too. So when things disturb, or change, long term patterns of atmospheric circulation, we get climate change.
Don’t put all your climate eggs in the ENSO basket, please. 🙂
Basil
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Anyway it is the net behaviour of all the oceans combined together with variations in solar activity that discharges and recharges OHC not just ENSO.”
Show me with data and graphs, please. I’m a visual person.
And as noted above. Pavlakis et al (2008)…
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
…illustrated that downwelling shortwave radiation (and for the tropical Pacific it’s “the component of the net heat into the ocean with the largest magnitude”) increases over the Pacific Warm Pool, and the increase in DSR is significant, 25 watts/sq meter during the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2435kbb.jpg
*********
par5 (02:00:48) :
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.
********
There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning heat. All solids, liquids and gasses contain heat. If one could cool a substance to absolute zero, it would contain no thermodynamical heat. But due to the fact that elements and molecules have a quantum ground state, the element or molecule can be cooled only to that small but positive temperature and therefore contains heat. So, one could say that heat is “stored” or contained by all substances. I believe what is implied when one says heat is stored in the ocean is that a body of water warmer than the surrounding oceans, warmed by the
Sun for example, submerges, circulates in the ocean for some period of time, then reemerges as a body of water warmer than the surrounding water. Of course, it could reemerge in a body of water warmer than it and would then have a cooling effect at that location.
Nogw (07:46:41) :
FAO uses LOD (Length of the day) to succesfully predict sea temperatures in order to forecast fish catches
No, they do not. Because LOD is not forecast. What they noted was that there is a 55-60 year cycle in the catches and also in LOD. Good catch depends on temperature, moment of inertia of oceans and atmosphere depends on temperature, and LOD therefore also.
I’ve once read that it can take hundreds of years for ocean water to travel through an entire cycle (e.g. flow from tropics to arctic waters, cool down, sink, travel towards tropics, warm up, surface, etc.). So is it such a weird thought that some years, the sinking water is slightly warmer, and thus, many years later, the surfacing water will be slightly warmer as a result? Or has this been discussed before? (in that case, please reference).
Kevin Kilty: You wrote, “And, if Bob Tisdale, were on this post he’d undoubtedly bring up ENSO, in which storage and release takes place over many years, and the storage and release are not symmetric.”
I’ve commented a few times on this thread about ENSO.
An El Nino in a one year period can release enough heat from the tropical Pacific to cause a significant upward step change in mid-to-high latitude TLT anomalies of the Northern Hemiphere.
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
El Nino and La Nina events also dictate year-to-year variations in tropical TLT anomalies. Heat is released into the atmosphere during El Ninos and absorbed from the atmosphere during the La Ninas. Discharge/recharge.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2isid84.jpg
Those graphs are from this link:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
I’m always happy when I read that somebody has actually measured something. It is a lot more satisfying than reading that somebody’s computer successfully ran through some program code without crashing.
But; if that something that somebody “measured” happens to be some global phenomenon; such as heat content of the oceans (all of them); well alarm bells go off.
Dipping a thermometer in San Francisco Bay just off the St Francis Yacht Club Headquarters; is not a sufficient measurement of the ocean’ s heat content.
Measuring the ocean’s heat content is even more troublesome than measurting the earth’s mean surface temperature, because that heat content problem is a three dimensional problem, whereas surface temperature is only two dimensions.
So forgive me if I am less than enthusiastic about somebody’s claim to have measured the earth’s oceanic heat content; even once, let alone multiple times to show how it may have changed.
Andybody who wants to measure the oceanic heat content of the earth is advised to buy a book on the theory of sampled data systems, and read it.
George; we are not impressed.
Come on you guys,what is preventing the ocean waters from completely freezing up?
coaldust (06:54:45) :
Although you find this pedantic, I beleive that we all communicate better when terms are well defined and used in an accurate manner. “Heat” and “energy” are well defined, but the misuse of the term “heat” when “energy” is meant is rampant. See the phrase “ocean heat content”.
I take your point well that we all need to be precise, but sometimes being terribly precise is also being pedantic. Heat is energy, and I guess I’d need an example of where the finer points of how much energy the heat implies has caused a problem on this thread. My point to Leif was that someone could claim that the ocean contained no heat if it occurred at such a low temperature that the heat could be put to no use (i.e. had no availability as engineers would say). I would assume that someone who says “ocean heat content”, means the useful energy in the ocean, that is the mass of the ocean times a specific heat times some temperature difference, but to state things like this all the time would make me a pedant.
Leif, thanks for the context, I’ll go have a read of it.
George E. Smith (09:38:43) :
This is what profiling and objective mapping are for. And yes, it is a difficult problem.
Some of the people working on this have read those books. Others are actively developing the theory. Why would you expect differently?
The Sun can directly warm a body of water to teh depthe that sunlight is completely abosrbed, below whic it is dark and the oceans then only heat by conduction and convection and mixing.
As long as the data used in HADCRUT are not freely available -see Climateaudit for this- and that HADCRUT results therefore cannot be independently replicated, any model, any research trying to fit anything – for or against- into the published HADCRUT curve is in my opinion at great risk of instant oblivion the moment HADCRUT is replicated.
Yet in so many discussions, what’s missing is how any solar or other influence is “translated” into meteorological data that in turn will become, over time, climate. The fixation on the one parameter -Hadcrut temperature- is blinding and misleading. In particular, the general atmospheric circulation is the key to understanding how those effects are playing. That is why it is unbelievable that Marcel Leroux’s work is so neglected. In fact, his reconstruction -I do not say model- of the general circulation, based on observed facts, satellite imagery and meteorological realities initially during extensive studies of weather and climate of tropical Africa, later extended to the entire globe is the missing link between the numerical models validation. Specifically the 1970s climatic shift is well documented in his work.
Between models’ run and the multiple possible answers they give (summarized as GI=GO) i.e. subjective, tweaking of parameters in order to fit the expected result, hardly an independent proof of anything, and theories such as Svenmark’s or observations from solar scientists and geophysicists researches, the only verification will come from observed meteorological data and their evolution in time. That is where Leroux’s work is invaluable as it constraints both models and the research for the cause of variations.
The second English edition of Leroux “dynamic analysis of weather and climate” will be published in early 2010. I strongly encourage all researchers to read it because it expose the understanding that leads to ways of verifying, objectively the findings of climate science.
Professor Marcel Leroux passed away August 12, 2008, a year ago.
Bob Tisdale (09:29:39) :
Kevin Kilty: You wrote, “And, if Bob Tisdale, were on this post he’d undoubtedly…
I’ve been trying to use the “find on this page” option of the edit tab to help me see who is posting when I’m very late getting here, but it doesn’t seem to work consistently. Anyway by slowly going through the post, item by item, I saw that you were indeed here…
I can fully understand the oceans warming faster than cooling; the two mechanisms are different. Main warming mechanism is short wave radiation; main cooling is evaporation and long wave radiation.
“”” Kevin Kilty (05:20:53) :
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:44) :
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
A somewhat pedantic point of physicists is that one refers to heat as energy during transfer only. If one looks at the oceans as being at a “dead state” temperature, then one does not see the oceans as a source, but rather only as a sink. In another context one must see the oceans as a source and the polar regions as a sink, howeve. I’d like to know, Leif, what was the context of this other thread? “””
“””A somewhat pedantic point of physicists is that one refers to heat as energy during transfer only. “””
I had to paste that twice; just to make sure I got it correctly.
As a practising physicist with more than 50 years of slogging away at it; this is my second introduction to this weird pedanticism; the first being whan Nasif started writing that on some of the threads here.
“Heat” is energy during transfer only; so what then is “light”. Well I know what it is; I work with it every day. Pedantically speaking it is the psychophysical response of the Human eye to received electromagnetic radiation in the single octave from about 400 to 800 nm wavelength.
So this distinguishes “light” from “heat”, since light exists ONLY after reception by the human eye (no not baboon eyes either); whereas according to Kevin and Nasif; and Nasif’s eminent Mentor, Heat does not exist in any storage mechanism; it is not emitted by anything, nor received by anything, but exists ephemerally during transit from source to sink. That puts it into the realm of particle physics almost, where the forces of nature are moderated by “exchange” particles that pass in a transitory fashion between particles to establish a foce between them. The standard classroom example is two ice skaters facing each other, and tossing a medicine ball (exchange particle) form one to other, and back thereby creating a repulsive force that drives them apart on the ice.
Now Kevin’s news will come as a big surprise to those few people who have bought solar thermal homes which have a basement pit full of rocks through which air warmed by the sun is passed during the day thereby warming the rocks up; so that at night they can pass air through those warmed rocks and use it to warm their house. I would say heat their house, but that would violate Kevin’s pedantic point of physics; that it isn’t heat unless it is in transit.
Well I have to disagree with both Kevin, and Nasif, after studying the subject for at least 50 years; “heat” if you must use it as a noun; ONLY exists in conjunction with real particulate matter; atoms and molecules; and it RESIDES in the mechanical kinetic energy of the random motions of those real matter particles. ONLY such real materials can have a “temperature”, which word has no meaning, absent real materials.
Incidently, the appropriate “exchange” particle of electromagnetism; one of the two natural forces with infinite range is the “photon”. Photons don’t exist inside anything; they aren’t real matter; they exist ONLY in transit from one particle to another in moderating the electromagentic force.
“Heat” on the other hand is NOT one of the exchange particles and exists only in real matter. Like warm rocks; or the earth’s oceans. That’s if you want to be physically pedantic of course.
George
3×2 (07:50:00) :
I have always been more than a little uncomfortable with applying “clean” physical laws to dynamic planet wide systems particularly ours.
I think that all systems obey the ‘clean laws’.
@ Robert Wood (10:06:11) :
” The Sun can directly warm a body of water to teh depthe that sunlight is completely abosrbed, below whic it is dark and the oceans then only heat by conduction and convection and mixing. ”
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is some heating as a result of volcanic activity – black smokers, island building, and the like. I’d be curious to know if anyone has a clue about that. Is it significant enough to take into account?
“”” oms (10:05:34) :
George E. Smith (09:38:43) :
Measuring the ocean’s heat content is even more troublesome than measurting the earth’s mean surface temperature, because that heat content problem is a three dimensional problem, whereas surface temperature is only two dimensions.
This is what profiling and objective mapping are for. And yes, it is a difficult problem.
Andybody who wants to measure the oceanic heat content of the earth is advised to buy a book on the theory of sampled data systems, and read it.
Some of the people working on this have read those books. Others are actively developing the theory. Why would you expect differently? “””
Well I’m glad to hear that OMS; so we don’t have to worry any more about Urban heat islands and other such peculiarities, that seem to upset computations such as GISStemp; but don’t seem to bother planet earth one iota; that’s wonderful news.
George E. Smith (10:28:02) :
There are urban heat islands in the middle of the ocean?
George E. Smith (10:18:42) :
…“heat” if you must use it as a noun; ONLY exists in conjunction with real particulate matter; atoms and molecules; and it RESIDES in the mechanical kinetic energy of the random motions of those real matter particles. ONLY such real materials can have a “temperature”, which word has no meaning, absent real materials.
Then, it is not “heat”, but kinetic energy (included in internal energy), which is not a trajectory quantity, but a state function.
So as you describe it is the same as saying “…and energy in transit (heat) RESIDES in the mechanical kinetic energy of the random motions…”
Sounds odd, isn’t it? I do not buy that.
“…. magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants”
Wow, where have I heard that before?
I don’t want to bring this debate here again. I have explained this “thing” many times trying to be adhered to clear science.
For this reason, I won’t talk again on this issue; there are hundreds of scientific essays explaining and clarifying the physical theories from which you can find that I am correct.
I just want to express something very important for us all, who are incorrectly labeled like “skeptics”: We, as scientists and/engineers, who wish to restore the correct scientific methodology and truthful science, are not allowed to use wrongly the scientific terminology or to confound it. I told you this due to my personal experiences with AGWers.
I apologize if I have bothered to someone with true scientific concepts. Those are not my perceptions, but the perceptions of all physicists writing on heat, heat transfer, thermodynamics, physics, etc.
I forgot to say: Thanks, Anthony Watts and moderators, for your patience.
Nasif Nahle (10:46:57) :
I do not buy that.
So, you then also do not buy that the oceans contain heat [the first three words of the topic of this thread is ‘ocean heat content’]. Perhaps you should write a letter to the editor of Physics Letters A to point out that he and the peer-review process have failed in allowing a paper with such a title to be published…
Is the PDO regime still negative? Or has it moderated because of the recent warm SSTs?
@ George E. Smith (10:28:02) : RE: Sampling theory.
I’ll second that motion. And also offer a fairly decent primer on such things – http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html . In the Process Analysis section.
“I certainly don’t think that the oceans act as a very long period capacitor, but they do have capacity. ”
I have always wondered about the effects of pressure on the specific heat capacity of water. At the bottom of the ocean the pressure is huge and the amount of heat required to change its temperature must be much greater than at the surface.
Does anyone know the physics behind this?
RE: “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.”
To further Anthony’s electrical circuit analogy, there is little to no series inductance, therefore the “cap” can discharge rapidly “when the discharge circuit is closed.”
George E. Smith wrote:
“Measuring the ocean’s heat content is even more troublesome than measurting the earth’s mean surface temperature, because that heat content problem is a three dimensional problem, whereas surface temperature is only two dimensions.”
Careful, man, they’ll accuse you of thinking the Earth is Flat! 🙂
I get your point, and agree, I think… but there has to be a better way to phrase this. “Relatively two-dimensional”???
Best,
Frank
Leif Svalgaard (11:31:14) :
So, you then also do not buy that the oceans contain heat [the first three words of the topic of this thread is ‘ocean heat content’].
I think you should read some of his comments above where he specifically states this that oceans do not contain heat, they contain energy.
From the wiki:
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.
Nasif: I have a similar problem with the rather annoying usage of feedback terminology. I’ve all but given up the fight due to overwhelming opposition. I need more control theory experts to post in here in my defense. That and when to use an apostrophe with a trailing “s,” hehe. The latter is equally unwinnable.
Mark
RE: “The flow is always sun to oceans to air to space. It cannot be reversed. Only the speed can be changed.”
Space is “ground” / “earth” potential. The “speed” is the integral of all thermal resistance terms.
steve (08:17:22) :
“Just to give some relative sense of scale, the Three gorges dam is around 30 cubic km once filled. The thermal expansion of the oceans is around 5400 cubic km and that’s just 1993-2003.”
That’s interesting tallbloke but hardly relative to all the land sequestration of water involved. If you have the scientific evidence to show new dam construction is minor when measuring sea level variations then perhaps you should publish a rebuttal to the paper I cited which was peer reviewed and in a reputable journal.
What I pointed out was that the IPCC already allowed for land use change in their estimate. How correct they are is, as I also pointed out, debatable.
Your peer reviewed paper is one document among thousands of peer reviewed papers which conflict with each other. If you believe one rather than another, I’m sure you have reasons for your preference, but unless you choose to be clear about what they are, I’m not sure how we proceed to making sense of the conflicting estimates. I’m not in general a big fan of the IPCC, but they did at least set up a pretty wide ranging system for comparing data. Did the authors of your paper contribute to the process or complain about being excluded from it ?
Re: “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.”
As the fictional Mr. Spock might say, “Fascinating”.
Leif Svalgaard (09:19:28) :
Nogw (07:46:41) :
FAO uses LOD (Length of the day) to succesfully predict sea temperatures in order to forecast fish catches
No, they do not. Because LOD is not forecast. What they noted was that there is a 55-60 year cycle in the catches and also in LOD. Good catch depends on temperature, moment of inertia of oceans and atmosphere depends on temperature, and LOD therefore also.
If you take the trouble to actually read the NAO document, rather than shooting from the hip at any post mentioning LOD, you’ll see that they do indeed assert that due to the offset of their fit of LOD to temperature, they are able to offer a six year prediction.
90% of LOD change is caused by the altering of currents under the earth’s crust. You are confusing this with the 10% of LOD variation due to the atmosphere/ocean energy exchange.
Dr Richard Gross of NASA, who compiled the LOD series back to 1832 says this is so. I guess he should know.
George thinks I am a student of Nasif, and Nasif thinks I am an AGWer. This is tough threading! Guys, all I did was suggest that one could think of the oceans as not having heat energy if there was no means of using that heat in any way. If one couldn’t transport it. If we have to make every tiny point absolutely clear then we begin to seem like pedants. I apologize for using the term, though.
This is the last I write on this point, because there are more interesting issues in this thread to think about.
Leif Svalgaard (11:31:14) :
Nasif Nahle (10:46:57) :
I do not buy that.
So, you then also do not buy that the oceans contain heat [the first three words of the topic of this thread is ‘ocean heat content’]. Perhaps you should write a letter to the editor of Physics Letters A to point out that he and the peer-review process have failed in allowing a paper with such a title to be published
Dumb words usually fall on deaf ears.
Bob Tisdale (09:29:39)
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
Very interesting perspective.
–
For anyone thinking, “I don’t have time to watch these anomaly videos Bob posts”: You may be missing the point. Just because the yo-yo goes up & down does not mean the hand is not moving…
Mark T (12:12:30) :
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.
It is not about being ‘correct’, but about being sensible and useful. The title could not have been ‘ocean energy content’, because that would not have been correct in a physical sense. The kinetic energy of the ocean currents, for example, is not included. One could perhaps have said ‘ocean thermal energy content’ but that is cumbersome and in communication the easy forms always win and by there usage establish what is correct terminology. Trying to go against that is ultimately a losing proposition.
Even trying to apply the ‘correct’ old thermodynamic definition can get you in trouble when confronted with reality. We speak of how to account or explain ‘coronal heating’. The 2nd law prevented understanding of that process for half a century. It has been suggested since the 1880s that the corona was extremely hot [millions of degrees] because of its great extent and spectral characteristics, yet the understanding of this was held back until the 1930s because it was deemed impossible to heat a million-degree corona by a 6000-degree photosphere. So, we should not be allowed to talk about heating the corona. I submit that ‘heating the corona’ and ‘ocean heat content’ and similar terminology is useful [and is in fact the accepted usage], and that this is not misuse or misleading.
So blinded is Nasif that he was trying to convince us that the units for ‘amount of heat’ is Watt and not Joule. I see no reason to nitpick against the use of the term ‘ocean heat content’ as being misuse. Correct use is what is being used by researchers in a field.
tallbloke (13:10:47) :
90% of LOD change is caused by the altering of currents under the earth’s crust.
But that is not what regulates SST.
Nasif Nahle (13:20:33) :
“Perhaps you should write a letter to the editor of Physics Letters A to point out that he and the peer-review process have failed in allowing a paper with such a title to be published”
Dumb words usually fall on deaf ears.
I’m reasonably sure that if you phrase your words carefully and forcefully and with loads of references to authorities that the ears might be a less deaf than you surmise.
tallbloke (13:10:47) :
7.1 SUMMARY
Regular climate changes have taken place over the last millennium with a period of 55–65 years.
Period.
************
Mark T (12:12:30) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:31:14) :
So, you then also do not buy that the oceans contain heat [the first three words of the topic of this thread is ‘ocean heat content’].
I think you should read some of his comments above where he specifically states this that oceans do not contain heat, they contain energy.
From the wiki:
heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.
Nasif: I have a similar problem with the rather annoying usage of feedback terminology. I’ve all but given up the fight due to overwhelming opposition. I need more control theory experts to post in here in my defense. That and when to use an apostrophe with a trailing “s,” hehe. The latter is equally unwinnable.
Mark
*************
That form of the word heat is from the verb: to heat.
There is nothing wrong with that usage, but the usage described in the link below is more relevant to the article.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/heatAndTemperature/heatAndTemperature.html
Leif Svalgaard (13:33:22) :
tallbloke (13:10:47) :
90% of LOD change is caused by the altering of currents under the earth’s crust.
But that is not what regulates SST.
The short term changes in LOD (bi-annual) affect short term changes in SST (bi-annual)
The long term changes in LOD (multi-decadal) affect long term changes in SST (multi-decadal).
Mark T (12:12:30) :
“From the wiki:
heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.”
From Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary (1991):
“However, the term is still used also to refer to the energy contained in a sample of matter.”
From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“The principle of charity governs the interpretation of the beliefs and utterances of others. It urges charitable interpretation, meaning interpretation that maximizes the truth or rationality of what others think and say.”
SteveSadlov (12:09:17) :
RE: “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.”
To further Anthony’s electrical circuit analogy, there is little to no series inductance, therefore the “cap” can discharge rapidly “when the discharge circuit is closed.”
No, the “cap” can discharge rapidly ONLY if the resistance over which it discharges is low. Even without inductance
However, if the input/output of this “cap-resistor” system is cyclical, we’ll see phase lags of up to 1/4 cycle length.
Sorry, could not resist. 🙂
“The short term changes in LOD (bi-annual) affect short term changes in SST (bi-annual)”
I should have added: and are affected by short term changes in SST also. It’s a resonant feedback situation.
L: The term “Civil Servant” is an oxymoron – they are never civil and they are certainly not servants – nor of any useful service. Observation and having worked to them for longer, perhaps, than was sensible. But you have to eat.
This thread seems to have become fixated on the meaning of heat. Whether heat is energy or not is arguable, but in retrospect we should define what we are trying to measure.
I was taught in physics that energy is the capacity to do work. I also learned in thermodynamics that heat can only do work if there is a heat gradient. Indeed, before we learned that we were all going to die by a big Rip in cosmological terms, astronomers speculated that the universe might end in the ‘heat death’. Something of a misnomer perhaps, it meant simply that they thought eventually all heat gradients would disappear and the entire universe would be permeated by heat energy of a uniform nature – that is, entropy would be at a maximum. The reason this was deemed a bad thing to have happen, is quite simply because no work can be done when the entire universe is pervaded by a single temperature. The paradox is that although heat exists everywhere, no work can be done. I take that to be an a priori argument for no energy to exist.
So, heat does not mean energy necessarily, but it depends what we are trying to measure. My understanding of use of oceans as a heat sink, is that it can be a metric for global warming. That is, if there is a radiative imbalance of so many watts/m2, then this must show up somewhere. If this goes into the oceans, then it results in an increase in ocean temps. Therefore, we are looking for anomalies in ocean heat from which we can calculate the radiative imbalance. On the other hand, the question is can that ocean heat be given up? This must be the case whether one thinks of it as energy or not.
Confusing isn’t it?
That’s a kind of anchovies’ horoscope 🙂
Bob Tisdale, I’ve just been having a look at your blog post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
In 2003 & 2004 the North Pacific High locked-in to produce months of continuous sunshine during a time of the year when the days are 18 hours long (at my latitude of 49N). While those 2 particular years stand out, there really wasn’t much cloud or rain in summer for several years [post 1998 step] until 2007 & 2008, which were notably comfortable in *sharp* contrast (beautiful La Nina summers – very comfortable for outdoor rec – no multi-week or multi-month paralyzing-heat sunshine-lock-in periods). I was working as a guide in the mountains for a number of years during this period and I sea-kayak year-round, so I tend to pay very careful attention to what is going on – lives depend on it. The atmosphere was turbulent in winter 2006/2007 (record winds mowing trees down in domino chain-reactions, cluttering local waterways with debris, including scores of whole-trees) and then an abrupt change in SST occurred mid-September 2007. A number of local kayakers died in cold waters early that fall. I switched to wearing a wetsuit & using pogies mid-September, but many are guided by the norm (based on the calendar & conventional wisdom) that mid-October is the time to switch – a very costly mistake for some in 2007. The main point I am making (with supplementary anecdotes) is about mid-latitude long-day summer-insolation having a hand in guiding the path of interannual anomaly retention & longevity – i.e. the signal is not purely of tropical origin, although El Nino pulses certainly play a dominating role.
Your posts complement the biased & bland literature (which doesn’t trigger nearly as many new thoughts as a more liberal publication system might). Thank goodness for blogs (speeding things up).
I’ve no preference as regards ocean heat content as against ocean energy content but I do consider that the energy content of the oceans is only expressed as heat when it moves from ocean to air i.e. the transfer of energy raises the temperature of the air.
If oceanic energy fails to move from ocean to air then there is similarly a lack of heat in the air by which is meant a lower temperature even though strictly speaking one should say that air at a lower temperature contains less energy.
As Leif says, use the term which is most useful in expressing meaning even if there might be a more appropriate and technically correct terminology.
Whilst I’m at it, I seem to detect resistance to my contention that the oceans themselves, unforced by changes in the air, can alter the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air.
Is there such resistance to my suggestion and if so why ?
Tallbloke, it is not a matter of selecting a study of new dam construction affects on sea level to believe. If it is perhaps you know which study the IPCC relied upon to leave this factor or any of the other factors I mentioned out of the attribution tables. The relationship between the individuals that did the study and the IPCC I have no knowledge of nor interest in.
Leif Svalgaard (13:31:26) :
So blinded is Nasif that he was trying to convince us that the units for ‘amount of heat’ is Watt and not Joule. I see no reason to nitpick against the use of the term ‘ocean heat content’ as being misuse. Correct use is what is being used by researchers in a field.
Why are you insisting on pulling me into your ignorant conceptualization of science? I said that I won’t write on this issue again, but you are as insistent as ignorant in thermodynamics.
Here is not a matter of sensibility, but of good and correct science.
The unique thing I have gotten from your arguments against thermal science is that a solar physicist you, Leif, doesn’t know what is heat, confounds heat with kinetic energy, and heat with temperature.
Mark T (12:12:30) :
I also have come to accept the abuse of the verb heat, as I have come to accept the abuse of feedback terminology and the abuse of the adjective proven.
Not really worth arguing over if you understand what they’re really trying to say..
DaveE.
Ninderthana (06:31:27) “Correction – that should have read ~ 2014 – 2018 (+/- a few years), Sorry.”
I was glad to see this correction.
Supplementary:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ClimateRegimeChangePoints.PNG
–
Ninderthana (06:25:06) “No they actually occur because of long-term changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, that are being driven from outside the Earth. Why are most of you ignoring this fundamental result?”
I wouldn’t have challenged this assertion: “These abrupt changes presumably occur because the existing state is no longer stable and there is a transition to a new stable state.” (….but I agree with your challenge otherwise.)
Also, it’s not just LOD. It’s Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) more generally. We should keep in mind that the 5 EOP are not independent (3 can form a basis). It is not disputed that weather/climate affects EOP and it is also not disputed that solar system dynamics affect EOP. I don’t think it will be much longer before mainstream scientists pile on this now that we know Chandler wobble phase reversals indicate broad-scale solar insolation phase-relationship reversals. [This is where people have to snap-to & clue in.] Gross is already acclaimed for pointing out ocean-bottom pressures – it’s not much of a step from there to noting how the SS asymmetries & LNC combine to influence the terrestrial fluid shells. Btw you don’t need to use asymmetries; r” (a very simple measure) captures that info [compare the plot I posted with your asymm curve to see this …and more…]
Btw: re the 6-8 year lag – that’s just the polar motion group-wave (averages 6.4a, hits 8a +/- a decade centred on ~1931) …and there is another variable that leads LOD by a 1/2-cycle despite decadal variations in instantaneous period.
This is all coming together quite nicely…
…about to run another wavelet analysis using an amazingly-useful filter that should yield new insight into ENSO….
This sort of puts nails in AGW’s major claims.
Will the APS go through with backing down from its prior, radical, stand on AGW?
Kevin Kitty,
When the heat latent in the oceans feed a tropical cyclone, or an El/La Nina, PDO, etc. etc. etc., that heat content is doing a lot of work.
OK, let me try this again….
[clean physics] If I gave you my current planetary co-ordinates, time of day and the date, you as a quick minded Physicist, knowing the incoming W/m^2, should be able to give me a fairly exact calculation as to what the instrumentation in my hand (on the ground) should be reading…. [dirty Physics] It would be wrong because I am under a bunch of low level cloud made around Florida a week ago and my reading is 1/3 of your calculation.
I am trying to make some sense of why people completely ignore our planet wide, dynamic, water based, energy transfer engine in favour of [clean] “black body” equations.
So.. on a planetary scale is the suggestion valid that anything going on within the atmosphere is irrelevant and that viewed from outside only “clean” physical equations matter? (ln(co2), T^4…). If so could you explain why.
[hope that makes more sense]
Mark T (12:12:30) :
OMG! The possessive apostrophe!
as in, “that’s Jones’ car”
DaveE.
O/T, but very important.
Per U.N.; we now have only 4 months to save the planet:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557
JimB
Basil: You wrote, “What do I have to say to get you to acknowledge that the PDO is more than just an artifact of ENSO?”
Provide some papers that disprove the findings of Newman et al and Zhang et al. As we’ve discussed via email, Miller et al is not one. Miller et al confirms Newman et al and suggests additions to the simple Newman model to make it more inclusive.
Miller et al write, “Adding a lagged KOE response pattern, mimicking the gyre-scale spin-up delay, may improve the fit of the Newman et al. (2003) simple model. Alternatively, midlatitude ocean-atmosphere, or ocean-atmosphere- ecosystem, feedbacks may be important.”
You wrote, “More heat gets moved around the earth by atmospheric circulation than by ocean circulation, and faster, too.”
Do you have a comparison of atmospheric circulation versus ocean circulation, including the amount of heat transported by AMOC?
You wrote, “So when things disturb, or change, long term patterns of atmospheric circulation, we get climate change.”
The two largest factors that impact year-to-year and decadal variability of climate are volcanic aerosols and ENSO. ENSO events, even subtle changes in equatorial Pacific SST, change atmospheric circulation patterns.
Re: tallbloke (13:58:06)
Are you sure you’ve got the chicken & the egg in the right order?
Mark T (12:12:30):
Misplaced apostrophes are nowhere near as outrageously misleading as the misapplication of feedback concepts in “climate science.” 🙂
Re: tallbloke (14:14:31)
Do you mean semi-annual?
Oceanic energy comprises more than just heat, it also includes kinetic energy
“”” 3×2 (15:44:15) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:20:24) :
3×2 (07:50:00) :
I have always been more than a little uncomfortable with applying “clean” physical laws to dynamic planet wide systems particularly ours.
I think that all systems obey the ‘clean laws’.
OK, let me try this again….
[clean physics] If I gave you my current planetary co-ordinates, time of day and the date, you as a quick minded Physicist, knowing the incoming W/m^2, should be able to give me a fairly exact calculation as to what the instrumentation in my hand (on the ground) should be reading…. [dirty Physics] It would be wrong because I am under a bunch of low level cloud made around Florida a week ago and my reading is 1/3 of your calculation.
I am trying to make some sense of why people completely ignore our planet wide, dynamic, water based, energy transfer engine in favour of [clean] “black body” equations.
So.. on a planetary scale is the suggestion valid that anything going on within the atmosphere is irrelevant and that viewed from outside only “clean” physical equations matter? (ln(co2), T^4…). If so could you explain why.
[hope that makes more sense] “””
There’s nothing wrong with the physics; seldom is; what is wrong is the model of this planet that leaves out little nuisances like those clouds. The planet itself does not ignore those clouds which is why the models always get the wrong results.
So climatologists play with statistics trying to fit the curves to their model ins tead of playing with the physics to make the model conform to the reality.
Urban Heat islands are only a problem for climate modellers; because their models are wrong. UHIs are not a problem for the climate, in fact they are a great assistance in cooling the planet during the daytime hot periods. But an airport runway sensor in silicon valley, is not a good temperature sample for Loreto Mexico. I can assure you that that portion of the planet surface around Loreto Mexico, couldn’t care less what the runway temperature is at Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, CA.
****************
Vincent (14:31:11) :
I was taught in physics that energy is the capacity to do work. I also learned in thermodynamics that heat can only do work if there is a heat gradient.
*******************
The Earth is in the middle of a heat gradient defined by the Sun on one side of the Earth and the blackness of space on the other. In the conversations concerning radiative balance, there seems to be an underlying assumption that the day side of the Earth is being considered. Obviously, the night side must also be considered. A lot of radiation must escape at night. How is that figured into the “radiative balance?”
All of this discussion about the real definition of heat started over a confusion (not mine, but Leif’s confusion) between kinetic energy and heat.
After I explained him what the difference between heat and kinetic energy is, another confusion emerged (again, not mine) between heat and temperature.
Then that I tried to explain the new confusion, another confusion rose, now related with storage of energy and “storage” of heat. Again, the it was not my confusion.
Now that… person… is talking about “sensibility and kindness”. Come on! We are scientists!
Nasif Nahle (14:53:01) :
I said that I won’t write on this issue again
Well, stop then. I have not made any such declaration.
Curiousgeorge (10:20:50) :
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is some heating as a result of volcanic activity – black smokers, island building, and the like. I’d be curious to know if anyone has a clue about that. Is it significant enough to take into account?
A couple of months ago, moved by a similar question, I set about trying to find what I could about the state of knowledge of the geothermal contribution to the oceanic heat balance. Although my personal survey hardly rises to the level of superficial, I’ve seen enough to lead me to suspect that the current thinking that the geothermal input is negligibly small is probably erroneous. I even located a recent paper that seems to support this notion.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
Abstract. The dynamical role of geothermal heating in abyssal circulation is reconsidered using three independent arguments. First, we show that a uniform geothermal heat
flux close to the observed average (86.4 mW m−2 ) supplies
as much heat to near-bottom water as a diapycnal mixing rate of ∼10−4 m2 s−1 – the canonical value thought to be
responsible for the magnitude of the present-day abyssal cir- culation. This parity raises the possibility that geothermal heating could have a dynamical impact of the same order. Second, we estimate the magnitude of geothermally-induced circulation with the density-binning method (Walin, 1982), applied to the observed thermohaline structure of Levitus (1998). The method also allows to investigate the effect of
onto the bottom, thereby altering the density structure that supports a geothermal circulation. For strong vertical mix- ing rates, geothermal heating enhances the AABW cell by
about 15% (2.5 Sv) and heats up the last 2000 m by ∼0.15◦C,
reaching a maximum of by 0.3◦C in the deep North Pacific.
Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat
transport increases by ∼10% in the Southern Ocean. The
three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.
realistic spatial variations of the flux obtained from heatflow
measurements and classical theories of lithospheric cooling.
It is found that a uniform heatflow forces a transformation of ∼6 Sv at σ4 =45.90, which is of the same order as cur-
rent best estimates of AABW circulation. This transforma- tion can be thought of as the geothermal circulation in the absence of mixing and is very similar for a realistic heat- flow, albeit shifted towards slightly lighter density classes. Third, we use a general ocean circulation model in global configuration to perform three sets of experiments: (1) a ther- mally homogenous abyssal ocean with and without uniform geothermal heating; (2) a more stratified abyssal ocean sub- ject to (i) no geothermal heating, (ii) a constant heat flux of
86.4 mW m−2 , (iii) a realistic, spatially varying heat flux of
identical global average; (3) experiments (i) and (iii) with en- hanced vertical mixing at depth. Geothermal heating and di- apycnal mixing are found to interact non-linearly through the density field, with geothermal heating eroding the deep strat- ification supporting a downward diffusive flux, while diapy- cnal mixing acts to map near-surface temperature gradientsonto the bottom, thereby altering the density structure that supports a geothermal circulation. For strong vertical mix- ing rates, geothermal heating enhances the AABW cell by
about 15% (2.5 Sv) and heats up the last 2000 m by ∼0.15◦C,
reaching a maximum of by 0.3◦C in the deep North Pacific.
Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat
transport increases by ∼10% in the Southern Ocean. The
three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.
I’ve tried to raise this paper for discussion here a number of times without much success, which I’ve found a bit suprising, since to me it seems to indicate a fundamental flaw which may exist in any of the calculations that include the present thinking on oceanic geothermal input,which would probably include most of the GCMs out there. Moreover, since the authors of the paper used the most conservative assumptions to arrive at their conclusion, it seems probable that the error may be even more significant than they assert.
tallbloke (13:58:06) :
The long term changes in LOD (multi-decadal) affect long term changes in SST (multi-decadal).
‘affect’ is a weasel word. By what mechanism? Does Gross claim this too? Why not?
Leif Svalgaard (13:31:26) :
“Correct use is what is being used by researchers in a field.”
No question about it. Don’t waste your time debating semantics. Anybody who has burned a finger on a hot surface or later cooled that finger with an ice cube understands the title of the paper.
Leif Svalgaard (23:27:06) :
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.
Something changes the temperture. Gee, maybe the source of the energy that maintains that temperature, the sun, is the cause. Just a crazy hypothesis.
Mike Ramsey (16:35:44)
Just playing around with my editor. That was a cool effect.
JimB (15:57:13) :
O/T, but very important.
Per U.N.; we now have only 4 months to save the planet:
That’s the same time as the Copenhagen summit. Huh, what a funny coincidence.
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
DaveE.
“”” Pompous Git (14:05:26) :
Mark T (12:12:30) :
“From the wiki:
heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.” “””
And Wiki is the final arbiter of all things scientific ?
Notice what they say; “heat is the process…” clearly their idea of heat is that it is a verb. A heats B. I don’t have a problem with that; I prefere heat as averb, and not a noun; but common scientific usage does in fact use “heat” as a noun; but it also makes it clear that what we call heat (noun) is only the manifestation of that form of mechanical Kinetic Energy that is contained in real matter particles by virtue of their mass, and their random statistical velocities. My Physics Handbook simply says that Heat is a form of energy. Doesn’t say a word about heat being the transfer of energy. It also says the Symbol for heat is (Q), and the unit is (J) Joule. It further says that Q is the integral of CdT, where C is heat capacity; which is further defined as a MATERIAL property. I do believe I already wrote that heat and temperature have no meaning in the absence of materials.
As a further note the Handbook says that “Heat cannot be converted completely into mechanical or electrical energy.” This it cites as one form of declaration of the SECOND LAW of thermodynamics. It is not inconsequential since electric energy and mechanical energy can be converted completely into heat. This is an acknowledgement that the physical manifestation of heat is always in the form of a statistical distributiuon of thermal energy among particles, and it is inherently impossible to get them all to act in concert to perform mechanical work at 100% conversion.
Finally, we can cite the equation of state of an ideal gas: pV = NkT, where (p) and (V) are pressure and Volume respectively, (N) is the number of particles, (T) the temperature and (k) is Boltzmann’s constant.
The mean kinetic energy per particle is simply 3kT/2 presuming that the particle energy distribution follows the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution which is true for an ideal gas.
These relations are the means by which the mechanical kinetic energy of particulate matter is related to Temperature; which thereby connects matter, heat (energy) and Temperature inextricably.
George
There are reasons for how oceans distribute heat and release it, SST rising and falling and oscillating temperatures at the surface and atmosphere. One would think a ball spinning 1000+ mph at the equator may have something to do with it, maybe gravity too?
Heat storage and heat “in the pipeline” of the oceans are not one in the same.
See:
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/09/further-comments-regarding-the-concept-heating-in-the-pipeline/
It appears that OHC gain/loss during ENSO events may not behave uniformly.
[b]Absence of propagating upper ocean heat content anomalies in the eastern tropical South Pacific after ENSO events[/b]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL033065.shtml
Okay then, what is the scientific definition of “love”? Is love a scientific term for a physio-psychological measurable response or is it something more commonly known as romantic human love? If love is only known in the general public as romantic feelings, should we not then use the term “love” when we are talking about the physio-psychological manifestation? Is there a better word for the measurable response? Should we start arguing over when to use this word and when not too? This is the same argument you are having about “heat” and “energy”. Thank goodness no one has come up with a different term for love.
In order to reach a broader English-speaking audience than those who are narrowly focused on your topic, you use terms within that language that impart a general understanding within the native speakers that would read your article. It gets dicey when people of different languages try to understand your sense. Could that be the jist of your argument?
Let’s do another example. What is “snow”? In the English language we have one word for it. English speakers readily understand the meaning, even though we have several forms of snow. But we only use one word and its the CONTEXT that meaning is derived from. Eskimos have many words for snow (or so I am told). They don’t need additional context because they use the correct term for the kind of snow that is on the ground. Different languages can be used in different ways when engaged in technical writing.
So too the word “heat”. In the English language and in the broader audience the author hopes to reach, the use of the word “heat” is acceptable. It is the context where meaning is imparted. Technical writing walks a tightrope between correct usage, and common usage. Go too far either way and you will lose your audience in a haze of unknown jargon or fits of laughter over your juvenile attempt at scientific “prose”.
DaveE (16:39:26) :
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
Oceanic energy comprises more than just heat, it also includes kinetic energy,
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
Just a curiosity question here, how much “heating” of the oceans is caused by friction? I used to work on an abalone farm, and noticed that from the intakes to the plant (300m) youd pick up about one degree C. this is with big single stage pumps, so relatively low pressure, but high volume. So most o that is probably just from line friction. But im assuming here that kinetic energy is still transferred to heat from molecular friction? Maybe a dumb question, but just a curiosity.
DaveE (16:39:26) :
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
DaveE.
The wind and the currents store kinetic energy. But the ultimate source of almost all of that energy is the Sun. The earth’s internal heat also supplies some of that energy. Did I hear tsunami?
“”” Kevin Kilty (13:14:37) :
George thinks I am a student of Nasif, “””
George thinks no such thing; and has never said or hinted at any such thing.
So please read what I say, and not what you think I mean; I tend to say exactly what I mean; being somewhat conversant in the English language; although admittedly less so in the American form of it; but even there I do try.
My mention of a Mentor was, if you read my post again a reference to a (presumably) eminent but late scientist that Nasif cited as an authority on these subjects. I accept Nasif’s citing of this dearly departed chap as an authority; no reason I shouldn’t although he is unknown to me; which doesn’t count ofr much. Most scientists, I do not know.
I grouped you and Nasif, since you both made essentially the same claim that heat is only energy in transit, or words to that effect; whereas if anything is true, it is exactly the opposite; it is only heat when it is not in transit; well other than the very short time exchange of kinetic energies between heated particles in collisions.
George
For a good laugh, see here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm
“Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming”
–
“One key finding in the study is that it is not the warming of the ocean alone that reduces cloudiness — a weakening of the trade winds also appears to play a critical role.”
Have they perhaps [very belatedly] clued-in to the existence of the PWP?
With the flawed either/or logic and the untenable statistical-extrapolation – yikes. (Have they even taken Stat 101? Perhaps they have forgotten it’s lessons…)
Shouldn’t these people realize that if T, cloud, & PPT were the same thing, PCA & factor analysis would have told us that many decades ago?
Maybe they would clue in if the hydrologic cycle hit them in the head with a hammer (or a ceiling)? On the other hand: Their funding is secure because they are following the storyline the funding agencies like.
On the upside: At least clouds are on the alarmist-radar now.
With such slow steps, they’ll be able to time the sealing of their own coffins with the (career-end) conclusion of their need for funding.
Leif Svalgaard (16:18:55) :
Nasif Nahle (14:53:01) :
I said that I won’t write on this issue again
Well, stop then. I have not made any such declaration.
I won’t stop as long as you continue mentioning my name on trying to hide your obvious confusion on thermodynamics.
I am not trying to convince anyone on anything. I am only defining the concepts heat, internal energy, kinetic energy and their corresponding units in the way that REAL physics explains them. I cannot say there are no joules in heat simple and simply because heat is energy in transit. However, when I express that amount of energy flowing between two thermodynamic systems, I cannot express it in Joules, but in Joules/second or Watts. If I expressed them simply as Joules or Watt*second, I would not be talking about heat, but about load of energy.
Consequently, given that the authors of this paper wrote “Heat Content in Oceans”, they are misusing the scientific concepts.
I don’t care if they are wrong or not, that’s their problem.
Nevertheless, I very do care on the decomposition of science to the extreme of interchanging concepts as if they were marbles. I cannot say the elephants are dogs only because elephants and dogs are formed by cells.
In the very moment that the heat (the energy in transit) crosses the boundaries into the second system, it stops being heat; it is no more heat because it can be absorbed by the second system and, probably, stored, so it accounts, from that moment on, for the internal energy of the second system.
Heat is a process quantity. To say that process quantities can be stored by a thermodynamic system is claptrap.
Mike, you silly. Short Wave Radiation (SWR) IS the Sun! You know, Sunbeams! Absolutely no one here thinks the Sun is not involved. It just isn’t the source of the HUGE variations in weather and climate we get from Ol’Sol. Also, the authors contend that both delivery and “use” is quick, IE within months.
So what or where is the source of variation? That would be Earth’s atmosphere for SWR, Earth’s use of the heat energy obtained from SWR, and Earth’s way of getting rid of the excess. AGW’ers are concerned about whether or not Earth can get rid of excess heat because of a thickening blanket of greenhouse gases. However, excess heat as outgoing longwave radiation is reaching satellite sensors at the outer edge of the atmosphere, seemingly without even stopping to pay a toll booth charge through the blanket. In technical terms, there seems to be no CO2-related diminution of OLR. The Earth is breathing just fine.
Curiousgeorge (10:20:50) wrote:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is some heating as a result of volcanic activity – black smokers, island building, and the like. I’d be curious to know if anyone has a clue about that. Is it significant enough to take into account?”
Here’s a recent article by Emile-Geay and Madec on the role of geothermal heating in the deep oceans. The authors find the mixing effect underestimated and of the same order of magnitude of mixing due to diapycnal (density) differences. They write, for example:
“Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat transport increases by ~10% in the Southern Ocean. The three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.”
Geothermal heating, diapycnal mixing and the abyssal circulation
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
George E. Smith (16:57:53) :
I grouped you and Nasif, since you both made essentially the same claim that heat is only energy in transit, or words to that effect; whereas if anything is true, it is exactly the opposite; it is only heat when it is not in transit; well other than the very short time exchange of kinetic energies between heated particles in collisions.
Again, it’s not my claim, or “my” mentor’s claim (who, by the way, is Hendrick C. Van Ness), but of ALL physicists on this world, except two of them: you and Leif by saying that heat is the same as kinetic energy.
George, in good terms, I invite you to read any book on heat transfer and/or thermodynamics, and/or basic physics, and find if the concept “heat” is different from the one I have given here.
If you look into this matter, you’ll see that the term “heat” is being used incorrectly in climate science and, perhaps, in solar physics.
Mike Ramsey (16:57:53) :
Lets not forget gravity, the tides are a kinda noticeable example of this, and it moves a lot o water up and down on a daily basis, and would id imagine have a greater effect on the oceans as a whole(depths included) than the surface conditions. Even if it is a relatively uniform mechanism… its still variable.
George E. Smith (16:44:08) :
George, you go!
Heat is really energy associated with the motion and positions of the molecules in a material.
Just as mechanical energy can be transformed into heat energy, heat energy can be transformed into radiant energy (electromagnetic waves for the classically minded). Heat energy can be also be transformed into latent heat energy, say via evaporation. Clouds are the earth’s air conditioners, transporting heat to the cloud tops where when the water vapor condenses it releases all that heat which then radiates out into outer space.
“” tallbloke (05:12:16)
… stored down to 700m…
“”
I have some basic problems with that.
1. h2o reaches maximum density just a few degrees over freezing. Salt water is slightly lower in freezing point than fresh water. I would not expect warmer water to sink given the temperatures involved above 700meters. The only way you’re going to get more density is by evaporating h2o and increasing the salinity. Evaporating water takes lots more energy than would be associated with a modest temperature increase. In fact, it’s a lot more than than a 100C temperature increase for a given mass of h2o.
2. Most power in sunlight is in the IR and uV. Less than half is in the visible. The IR is blocked in millimeters or within in a millimeter and the red in a few meters. There is very little light left reaching down to 700m and most of the energy is deposited well before that distance. The deepest I’ve been is 20m of fresh water and it might as well have been night time for all I could see at that depth. AGW increases have to be totally in the far IR range anyway.
Consequences of these two items are the opposite of boiling water in a pot on the stove. There’s no mechanism for the top heated water to have convection downward and there’s no mechanism for the energy to be radiated downward. Whatever conduction might exist will be hampered by the rise in buoyancy of the water due to the rise in temperature.
The final facet of this ocean heat sink problem with longer time frames is that rather slow time frames mean rather small flow rates of energy. As has been mentioned here, a few miles of dirt and rock are all that exist between a quite temperature environment averaging around 288K from the temperatures within the Earth that are approximately the same as the photosphere (visible ‘surface’) of the Sun. On average, that heat flow due to a 5000K + temperature difference is inconsequential compared to the surface heat flow in and out from the Earth’s surface that happen on a daily basis.
I botched the copy and paste of the abstract in my post above, hopefully this will make more sense.
Abstract. The dynamical role of geothermal heating in abyssal circulation is reconsidered using three independent arguments. First, we show that a uniform geothermal heat
flux close to the observed average (86.4 mW m−2 ) supplies
as much heat to near-bottom water as a diapycnal mixing rate of ∼10−4 m2 s−1 – the canonical value thought to be
responsible for the magnitude of the present-day abyssal cir- culation. This parity raises the possibility that geothermal heating could have a dynamical impact of the same order. Second, we estimate the magnitude of geothermally-induced circulation with the density-binning method (Walin, 1982), applied to the observed thermohaline structure of Levitus (1998). The method also allows to investigate the effect of
onto the bottom, thereby altering the density structure that supports a geothermal circulation. For strong vertical mix- ing rates, geothermal heating enhances the AABW cell by
about 15% (2.5 Sv) and heats up the last 2000 m by ∼0.15◦C,
reaching a maximum of by 0.3◦C in the deep North Pacific.
Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat
transport increases by ∼10% in the Southern Ocean. The
three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.
realistic spatial variations of the flux obtained from heatflow
measurements and classical theories of lithospheric cooling.
It is found that a uniform heatflow forces a transformation of ∼6 Sv at σ4 =45.90, which is of the same order as cur-
rent best estimates of AABW circulation. This transforma- tion can be thought of as the geothermal circulation in the absence of mixing and is very similar for a realistic heat- flow, albeit shifted towards slightly lighter density classes. Third, we use a general ocean circulation model in global configuration to perform three sets of experiments: (1) a ther- mally homogenous abyssal ocean with and without uniform geothermal heating; (2) a more stratified abyssal ocean sub- ject to (i) no geothermal heating, (ii) a constant heat flux of
86.4 mW m−2 , (iii) a realistic, spatially varying heat flux of
identical global average; (3) experiments (i) and (iii) with en- hanced vertical mixing at depth. Geothermal heating and di- apycnal mixing are found to interact non-linearly through the density field, with geothermal heating eroding the deep strat- ification supporting a downward diffusive flux, while diapy- cnal mixing acts to map near-surface temperature gradients
“Just a curiosity question here, how much “heating” of the oceans is caused by friction?”
On a related note, there is a lot of mixing (which takes terawatts for all the oceans) done by animals.
Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean?
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/1501/1/JMR_64_541.pdf
These processes are important for maintaining the MOC (meridional overturning circulation) which is part of the ocean’s circulation system that returns cold deep water from the Arctic southward across the Equator. The water eventually upwells, mostly around the Antarctic.
For the system to continue its circulation there must be a driver for the upwelling and it turns out the main driver is turbulent mixing. It has been calculated that approximately 2 T watts are required annually to drive the system. Usually it is assumed that tides and winds each contribute about half of the necessary energy.
More recent work on the same topic:
Jellyfish And Other Small Sea Creatures Linked To Large-scale Ocean Mixing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729132107.htm
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2009) — Using a combination of theoretical modeling, energy calculations, and field observations, researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have for the first time described a mechanism that explains how some of the ocean’s tiniest swimming animals can have a huge impact on large-scale ocean mixing….
“There are enough of these animals in the ocean,” he notes, “that, on the whole, the global power input from this process is as much as a trillion watts of energy—comparable to that of wind forcing and tidal forcing.”
cancel that last try
Abstract. The dynamical role of geothermal heating in abyssal circulation is reconsidered using three independent arguments. First, we show that a uniform geothermal heat
flux close to the observed average (86.4 mW m−2 ) supplies
as much heat to near-bottom water as a diapycnal mixing rate of ∼10−4 m2 s−1 – the canonical value thought to be
responsible for the magnitude of the present-day abyssal cir- culation. This parity raises the possibility that geothermal heating could have a dynamical impact of the same order. Second, we estimate the magnitude of geothermally-induced circulation with the density-binning method (Walin, 1982), applied to the observed thermohaline structure of Levitus (1998). The method also allows to investigate the effect ofmeasurements and classical theories of lithospheric cooling.
realistic spatial variations of the flux obtained from heatflow
It is found that a uniform heatflow forces a transformation of ∼6 Sv at σ4 =45.90, which is of the same order as cur-
rent best estimates of AABW circulation. This transforma- tion can be thought of as the geothermal circulation in the absence of mixing and is very similar for a realistic heat- flow, albeit shifted towards slightly lighter density classes. Third, we use a general ocean circulation model in global configuration to perform three sets of experiments: (1) a ther- mally homogenous abyssal ocean with and without uniform geothermal heating; (2) a more stratified abyssal ocean sub- ject to (i) no geothermal heating, (ii) a constant heat flux of
86.4 mW m−2 , (iii) a realistic, spatially varying heat flux of
identical global average; (3) experiments (i) and (iii) with en- hanced vertical mixing at depth. Geothermal heating and di- apycnal mixing are found to interact non-linearly through the density field, with geothermal heating eroding the deep strat- ification supporting a downward diffusive flux, while diapy- cnal mixing acts to map near-surface temperature gradients
I in all honesty (not sarcasm) look forward to reading Dr. Douglas’ entire paper when it is published; this is of major interest to me and from what I do read based upon Tsonis and Swanson as well, seems very reasonable and done in the spirit of the scientific method, but I will refrain any judgement or claims until after I read it a few times first. Swanson and Tsonis did some compeling work in their last paper.
George E. Smith (16:44:08) :
And Wiki is the final arbiter of all things scientific ?
No, just the easiest reference to get to and likely the most common definition.
Notice what they say; “heat is the process…” clearly their idea of heat is that it is a verb.
Technically, a “process” is a noun, or rather “the process of energy transfer” is a object, i.e., it is a noun substitute. But either way, yes, they are describing “heat” as something that happens or gets done rather than something that is or exists.
Hey, it is all semantic and in general, everyone knows what is meant so it’s not that big of a deal. I think thermodynamics people tend towards Nasif’s usage, which is what I was also taught.
As for incorrect usage of the term feedback, the “climate science” usage is inexcusably bad and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the underlying concepts of control theory. Not that the stuff is simple, but it is generally considered core knowledge, i.e., one of the basics, for any engineering curriculum.
Mark
Pamela (16:53:58)
Well stated! I have always had a high opinion of Oregon State U alums who were from the Wallowas.
If we are fortunate, Roger Pielke, Sr. will soon offer some opinions on this paper in his Climate Science blog, the paper which some here choose not to discuss.
I just had a look at this:
Clement, A.C.; Burgman, R; & Norris, J.R. (2009). Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback. Science 325, 460-464.
They show insufficient respect for climate regime shifts and seem all-too-willing to embrace CO2 as a monotonic driver of future cloud cover. Furthermore, they point to computer fantasies as the way to gain more insight. (wtf??)
Pamela Gray (17:07:26) :
I was aware its a bit off topic, i was just got to thinking about about circulation in general, and just got too wondering 😉
Mike Ramsey (17:29:08):
George E. Smith (16:44:08):
Please, don’t get offended. Jerry D. Wilson explains very well what is heat in Chapter 11, page 360-382 of his book:
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994.
Some other references:
H. C. Van Ness. Understanding Thermodynamics; PAGE 17.
Thomas Engel and Philip Reid. Thermodynamics, Statistical, Thermodynamics & Kinetics. 2006. Pearson Education, Inc. PAGE 16.
Potter, Merle C. and Somerton, Craig W. Thermodynamics for Engineers. Mc Graw-Hill. 1993. PAGE 40.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/heat.html#c1
Sorry didn’t mean to stutter!
By the way, I haven’t really read the paper posted here; so nothing I have put on the pile relates in any way to that paper. But I’ll get around to looking at what the author’s have taken the trouble to put here for us to digest; so just in case they may think I have been jumping on them I haven’t. I at least read what people write before I try to comment on what it is they have said.
Anthony just keeps feeding us interesting pieces at such a rate, it is hard to keep up with, and a lot of these threads develop a complete life of their own unrelated to their original topic.
George
“”” DB2 (17:43:18) :
“There are enough of these animals in the ocean,” he notes, “that, on the whole, the global power input from this process is as much as a trillion watts of energy—comparable to that of wind forcing and tidal forcing.” “””
Watts are units of Power; not Energy; which as Leif has pointed out is measured in Joules.
It is hard to make rational arguments while using incorrect units.
For example stating the cost of solar energy in dollars per Watt; will just cause confusion. It will also underestimate that cost by typically confining the accounting to just the capital cost of the peak power capability of the system; but ignore the continuous running costs of maintenance and other fators; whcih typically affect the cost of available energy.
As for the above concept of the energy involved with swimming animals; I would submit that such work performed by these creatures is uncontrollable, and as such is akin to the random motions of atoms and molecules in thermal processes.
But bear in mind that those animals, and their heat producing thrashings around; are a product of the solar energy that entered the ocean; not to mention the CO2 that disssolved in the ocean and supplies important materials to these life forms.
So these critters are simply a process in the conversion of solar radiation energy into heat energy that is stored in the oceans.
I would advise against investing in any “green free renewable energy” program that plans to light Los Angeles from the combined efforts of phytoplankton off the LA coast.
“”” cba (17:32:12) :
“” tallbloke (05:12:16)
… stored down to 700m…
“”
I have some basic problems with that.
1. h2o reaches maximum density just a few degrees over freezing. Salt water is slightly lower in freezing point than fresh water. “””
What you state is true only of fresh water. Sea water which has an average salinity of around 3.5% exhibits NO maximum density before it freezes; for salinity of 2.47% or higher; where it freezes somewhere around -2.5 degC.
So salt water continues to get denser as it cools; so it does not exhibit the “turnover” phenomenon that occurs in fresh water lakes.
George
Re: DB2 (17:43:18)
Interesting – particularly since biological processes vary by orders of magnitude (in response to things like climate).
Watts are units of Power; not Energy; which as Leif has pointed out is measured in Joules.
Uh, units of power are time-varying units of energy, i.e., Joules per second. In other words, a Watt is a measure of the rate of energy transfer. Looking back at the first definition of heat… ahem.
Mark
Actually, DB2 used both “power” and “energy” in the same sentence for the same thing. Ok, strange. 😉
Mark
“Sea water which has an average salinity of around 3.5% exhibits NO maximum density before it freezes; for salinity of 2.47% or higher; where it freezes somewhere around -2.5 degC.”
Hmm if seawater density continued going up all the way to freezing then at the bottom of the ocean pressure alone would cause freezing. Salinity might lower the temp. at which density is at a minimum but the minimum must be there or the oceans would be solid at a few hundred feet.
Bollo density maximum in above post!
“”” Nasif Nahle (17:18:47) :
George E. Smith (16:57:53) :
I grouped you and Nasif, since you both made essentially the same claim that heat is only energy in transit, or words to that effect; whereas if anything is true, it is exactly the opposite; it is only heat when it is not in transit; well other than the very short time exchange of kinetic energies between heated particles in collisions.
Again, it’s not my claim, or “my” mentor’s claim (who, by the way, is Hendrick C. Van Ness), but of ALL physicists on this world, except two of them: you and Leif by saying that heat is the same as kinetic energy. “””
Nasif; please accept that my reference to Van Ness as “your mentor” carried no derogatory connotations; I’ll accept your word that he is (was) an author of repute; I never questioned that and it was easier to make such a reference, than to dig back though this pile to locate his name.
The various citations I posted here somewhere as from a “Physics Handbook” specifically come from “Handbook of Physics” edited by Walter Beneson, John W. Harris, Horst Stocker, and Holger Lutz which dates from 2002, and I believe is translated from a German original. I carefully chose to purchase this specific handbook, because it is a concise and highly pedantic treatise on the whole gamut of Physics; albeit with only brief coverage of any specific aspect of Physics.
Wikipedia may be the people’s encyclopedia of whatever; I use it myself; but I do not rely on it for definitiver work.
Benenson et al is rather rare in that it gives the specific exact values of the fundamental parameters of black body radiation in terms of fundamental physical constants; rather than giving some numerical value; whose accuracy will always be subject to suspicion. Knowing that C1 and C2, the two radiation constants, as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (sigma) have exact values in terms of fundamnetal constants, and are NOT the result of some statistical curve fitting process beloved of climate scientists, was a clincher in deciding to purchase this handbook to keep at my desk for reference.
The Planck derivation of the spectrum of blackbody radiation is one of the crown jewels of modern physics, and students need to know that it was a theoretical derivation from fundamentals, and not an exercise in statistical mechanics.
The Raleigh-Jeans, and Wien forms of the black body spectrum each had fatal errors that made both of them useless over wide spectral ranges; the so-called “Ultra-violet catastrophe” in the case of the Raleigh-Jeans fromula which predicts infinite spectral emittance at zero wavelength.
Scientists have to be especially careful (and pedantic) when using technical terms; that have specific scientific meanings as well as everyday colloquial meanings to lay persons.
The use of “brightness” for example instead of “Luminance” in discussions of photometric properties of light. Lay folks associate “brightness” with light bulbs and think it is synonymous with “candle power” or some other “scientific slang” usage.
Re: DB2 (17:43:18)
Figure 2 (lower panel) in the link you provide to…
Dewar, W.K.; Bingham, R.J.; Iverson, R.L.; Nowacek, D.P.; St. Laurent, L.C.; & Wiebe, P.H. (2006). Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean? Journal of Marine Research 64, 541-561.
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/1501/1/JMR_64_541.pdf
…provides a clue as to why rate of change of CO2 in the far south is in anti-phase with most of the world.
Plants, insects, & soil organisms (& humans) have a profound impact on the physical properties of soils (& the structure of the land surface). It is interesting that it has taken us so long to get around to opening our minds to what life is doing to modify ocean structure — more evidence that we have been living in times when “inconvenient” unconventional thinking is (basically) prohibited, even when it is sensible.
I am not sure on this but, did Dr. Douglas and Dr. Knox consider kinetic energy into the total available energy in the oceans in their analysis?
regarding heat; just read Peter Atkins textbooks on Physical Chemistry; he is the authority on this. You guys are overcomplicating what heat is; it is merely kinetic energy in total which transfers energy due to temperature difference, whereas temperature is the average kinetic energy…Atkins would say that heat is not really energy at all, but energy trnasfer due to temperature difference alone; both statements are made by phsysicists and chemists/Physical chemists, and are slightly different ways of viewing the same thing.
The numbers given in Dewar Et Al. (2006) do more to pose a question than provide any answer. They estimate (very roughly) an energy input due to swimming processes, and it is could be of useful magnitude, but even if you accept their ranges, you have to consider whether all this “stirring” is really diapycnal or not.
Mark T (17:51:03) :
But either way, yes, they are describing “heat” as something that happens or gets done rather than something that is or exists.
Yet all definitions of units state that there is such a thing as ‘amount [or quantity] of heat’ which is measured in Joule, e.g. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
“energy, work, quantity of heat: joule”
You can only have an amount or a quantity of something that is or exists. So ‘ocean heat content’ is something that has existence [and we all know that it is the kinetic energy of the random, chaotic movements of the molecules] and can be stored and transported around by bodily movements, like ocean currents and convection.
And for a solar physics application: there is coronal heating and heat is deposited in the coronal material. Yet the heating is not a process of transferring heat from a warmer to a colder body, because there is no warmer body around. The refusal of accepting this, set back coronal physics 50 years, because it was held to be impossible that the Sun [at 6000K] could heat the corona [at 1,000,000K]. Perhaps one could still maintain that there therefore is no coronal heating taking place, but that seems extreme and useless to me.
Jacob Mack (19:30:47) :
regarding heat; just read Peter Atkins textbooks on Physical Chemistry; he is the authority on this. You guys are overcomplicating what heat is; it is merely kinetic energy in total which transfers energy due to temperature difference, whereas temperature is the average kinetic energy…Atkins would say that heat is not really energy at all, but energy trnasfer due to temperature difference alone; both statements are made by phsysicists and chemists/Physical chemists, and are slightly different ways of viewing the same thing.
I have not conflict with Atkins’ description because he’s referring to energy transferred from one system to another system due to differences of temperature. It is true for any form of available energy (gravitational potential energy, or kinetic energy or internal energy) in the thermodynamic system that is being transferred in a given moment.
From Douglas’ and Knox’s article, I can deduce that they consider any amount from the total available energy can be transferred to the atmosphere or to the subjacent layers of the oceans and ground (one fifth from the total energy absorbed is transferred to the underlying surface). On the latter case, that is, when the energy is transferred to the underlying surface of the oceans and ground, the lag time between the event of absorption and storage of energy, and the dissipation of the stored energy, considering that “lag time” is a function of dissipation, is prolonged for an undetermined period of time. Oceans are highly efficient collectors of energy.
The phenomenon mentioned in the above paragraph is true for oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
The important thing on this conundrum of total available energy content in the oceans is to know how long the energy stored is maintained into the system. -we know that the available energy will be dissipated latter towards the atmosphere and other systems and to the outer space; however, we don’t know exactly when it will happen.
Nasif Nahle (19:20:31) :
I am not sure on this but, did Dr. Douglas and Dr. Knox consider kinetic energy into the total available energy in the oceans in their analysis?
They calculate the ocean heat content from the measured temperature profile.
Nasif Nahle (20:32:44) :
oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
You must mean their ‘high energy in transit capacity’.
Nasif,
thank you for your thorough response…much appreciated.
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:56) :
They calculate the ocean heat content from the measured temperature profile.
If they are calculating the ocean heat content, they are calculating nothing; consequently, they are disregarding the important portion of the total available energy into the system “oceans”. The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
Nasif Nahle (20:59:26) :
The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
The ocean heat content is the kinetic energy of the random, chaotic movements of the molecules. Now, heat is the ultimate sink of available energy, and is not available to do work.
For me the best comment so far on this topic came from Anthony.
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.
It very nicely explains the temperature trend that has been occurring and suggests the real cooling is still coming.
The current Landscheidt/Jose minimum will solve so many unanswered questions.
Leif Svalgaard (20:39:02) :
Nasif Nahle (20:32:44) :
oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
You must mean their ‘high energy in transit capacity’.
Wow! At last, you’re understanding the concept. Indeed, heat capacity describes the ability of a system to absorb energy in transit (heat) and store it like internal energy. The formula is quite simple: ρC = ρ (Cp)
I have to tell you, if you don’t know it, that heat capacity is not the same than specific heat capacity, OK?
Jacob Mack (20:41:55) :
Nasif,
thank you for your thorough response…much appreciated.
And you are welcome, Jacob. 🙂
Heat capacity is an extensive property and dependent upon mass; specific heat is intensive. The mass of the water; approxmately 71-74% of the Earth’s surface is alot of mass, but in addition water has an immensely high specific heat as well.
Just because bodies of water cool or rise in temperature at a slower rate, this does nothing to discredit heat transfer leading to higher global temps.
Leif Svalgaard (19:54:58) :
You can only have an amount or a quantity of something that is or exists.
Immaterial. I was specifically referring to George’s comment which was in response to the Wikipedia quote where Wikipedia = “they” in my comment.
Mark
[snip]
Reply: Smokey please refrain from badgering/personal attacks. ~ ctm
Leif Svalgaard (21:09:58) :
Nasif Nahle (20:59:26) :
The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
The ocean heat content is the kinetic energy of the random, chaotic movements of the molecules. Now, heat is the ultimate sink of available energy, and is not available to do work.
Oooh! I spoke too soon. Well, let’s start again with your lessons:
Kinetic energy is a state function, that is, a property of a thermodynamic system that depends on the current equilibrium state of that thermodynamic system, not the process by which that thermodynamic system acquired its current state .
On the other hand, heat and work are not state functions, but process quantities, i.e. physical quantities which describe the transition between an equilibrium state and another equilibrium state of a thermodynamic system. Got it? Two different things that must not be confused, correct?
Nasif Nahle (20:59:26) :
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:56) :
“They calculate the ocean heat content from the measured temperature profile.”
If they are calculating the ocean heat content, they are calculating nothing; consequently, they are disregarding the important portion of the total available energy into the system “oceans”. The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
What do you mean by this greater? The tidal kinetic energy? wind induced? the motion of the earth around the sun? the motion of the sun through the galaxy? The gravitational potential energy? The nuclear bound energy that could be released in a fission or fusion?
What is the total available energy content in the oceans according to you?
If you mean the kinetic energy in the degrees of freedom of the molecules in the ocean there is a direct formula connecting the temperature to the average kinetic energy.
I learned the definition of heat 40 years ago as a sophomore in college. My Classical Thermodynamics text (Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, by Van Wylen and Sonntag who are still publishing thermo texts) defines heat on page 73, section 4.7 (Definition of Heat). I quote:
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems. That is, heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to the system at the lower temperature, and the heat transfer occurs solely because of the temperature difference between the two systems. Another aspect of this definition of heat is that a body never contains heat. Rather heat can be identified only as it crosses the boundary. Thus heat is a transient phenomenon.”
The authors then discuss dropping a hot block of copper into a cold beaker of water. Later on we are given the units:
“We define as our unit of heat the quantity of heat transferred from the copper to the water, and call the unit of heat the British thermal unit, which is abbreviated Btu. More specifically, this is called the 60-degree Btu, which may be defined as the quantity of heat required to raise 1 lbm of water from 59.5 F to 60.5F.
“Similarly, a calorie can be identified as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water from 14.5 C to 15.5 C.
“Further, heat transferred to a system is considered to be positive, and heat transferred from a system, negative. . . . The symbol Q is used to represent heat.”
The last time I looked, there are simple conversions between Btu, calorie, and joule as they are all units of energy.
Jim
Nasif Nahle (21:16:47) :
I have to tell you, if you don’t know it, that heat capacity is not the same than specific heat capacity, OK?
Heat capacity is the capacity of a body to store heat. It is typically measured in units of J/°C or J/K (which are equivalent) and is an extensive property for the body. The numbers you give as heat capacity are not heat capacity but specific heat capacity, intrinsic properties of the material. Good ole Wikipedia can even tell you more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
I knew I shouldn’t have posted that when ctm was on duty!
Nasif Nahle (21:42:43) :
On the other hand, heat and work are not state functions
In the clause ‘ocean heat content’, ‘heat’ is clearly a state function, because of the word ‘content’. That is all. You may not like this meaning of heat, but it is the accepted usage in climate studies and astrophysics, and I have no problems with it. The heat content can be calculated from the temperature profile as the ARGO team does. I have no problems with that either. A very sensible and useful approach.
But to get you out of the broken record mode, how would you describe the coronal heating I referred to?
Ninderthana (07:03:08) : One factor none of you are seeming to consider is the up welling deep cool ocean water.
There is no upwelling of warmth (heat, energy, thermal whatever) because all upwelling of ocean water is cold. I will just say ‘warmth’ to avoid another argument. Warmth does not transfer from the sea floor to the surface, nor does it transfer from the surface to the sea floor. I never dived the Great Lakes, so I have no experience or personal observations of descending thermoclines or layers- but then this post is about the oceans. If you dive into the deep oceans, the surface may be warm, but immediately gets cold within the first few feet. There is no warmth coming from below- it only gets colder.
anna v (21:48:37) :
[Nasif Nahle (20:59:26) :
If they are calculating the ocean heat content, they are calculating nothing; consequently, they are disregarding the important portion of the total available energy into the system “oceans”. The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.]
What do you mean by this greater? The tidal kinetic energy? wind induced? the motion of the earth around the sun? the motion of the sun through the galaxy? The gravitational potential energy? The nuclear bound energy that could be released in a fission or fusion?
No; the total availabe energy comprehends only the gravitational potential energy, the internal energy and the kinetic energy; all of them. Nevertheless, kinetic energy of oceans is very small compared with the total available content of energy in the oceans.
What is the total available energy content in the oceans according to you?
According to me? Too much… According to climatologists, the global mean of available gravitational potential energy is 4.4 x 10^5 J/m^2 (energy per unit area), and the global mean kinetic energy is 0.006 x 10^5 J/m^2.
If you mean the kinetic energy in the degrees of freedom of the molecules in the ocean there is a direct formula connecting the temperature to the average kinetic energy.
Yes, temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of a thermodynamic system:
T = 1/[ΔS/ΔU] at constant volume (V) and number of particles (N), or:
[1/2 mv^2] = 3/2 kT
Leif Svalgaard (22:08:28) :
Nasif Nahle (21:16:47) :
I have to tell you, if you don’t know it, that heat capacity is not the same than specific heat capacity, OK?
Heat capacity is the capacity of a body to store heat. It is typically measured in units of J/°C or J/K (which are equivalent) and is an extensive property for the body. The numbers you give as heat capacity are not heat capacity but specific heat capacity, intrinsic properties of the material. Good ole Wikipedia can even tell you more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
The units of specific heat capacity are J/Kg K.
I gave the units J/m^3 K, which are for volumetric heat capacity. It is the product of density by specific heat capacity.
{J/m^3 K} = {(Kg/m^3) (J/Kg K)}
I don’t need Wikipedia, but it’s good in some things.
Leif Svalgaard (22:19:54) :
In the clause ‘ocean heat content’, ‘heat’ is clearly a state function, because of the word ‘content’. That is all. You may not like this meaning of heat, but it is the accepted usage in climate studies and astrophysics, and I have no problems with it. The heat content can be calculated from the temperature profile as the ARGO team does. I have no problems with that either. A very sensible and useful approach.
But to get you out of the broken record mode, how would you describe the coronal heating I referred to?
Sorry for them (the authors of the paper); they should have writen “total content of available energy in the oceans”, unless they were referring to the energy transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere or to other systems. 🙂
How would I describe the coronal heating you referred to? There are two possible ways of explaining it. Of course those are speculations:
1. The Sun is not so gaseous as solar physicists think, or…
2. Quantum tunneling; although we should look for a quantum barrier, possibly the Helmet Streamers; excess of protons and electrons over there due to trapped plasma.
Nasif Nahle (23:12:35) :
The units of specific heat capacity are J/Kg K.
No, all that is required is a way of removing the reference to the ‘size’ of the body, be it measured in kg or m^3 or moles or whatever. To make the difference between an extensive and an intrinsic property.
The heat content has nothing to do with ‘available’ energy [it is in fact not available once it is heat – entropy never decreases] and has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy. And the oceans have a certain heat capacity [ability to store heat], determined by their volume [or at least the volume considered].
There is really no need to bring in all these straw men [like ‘heat is photons’ and the unit of heat [dQ] is Watt while that of Q is Joule, etc]. It is very simple: in climate studies [page 2, line 4 of the paper] “one generally finds the total ocean heat content expressed in units of 10^22 J”
In http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf you can find an authoritative [you like authorities] discussion of the issues of heat storage, H, in the oceans. The quantity dH/dt is a measure of ‘Global Warming’, which makes H(t), the heat stored in the system at any given time, t, a very interesting and important number.
Nasif Nahle (23:28:37) :
How would I describe the coronal heating you referred to? There are two possible ways of explaining it. Of course those are speculations:
1. The Sun is not so gaseous as solar physicists think, or…
2. Quantum tunneling; although we should look for a quantum barrier, possibly the Helmet Streamers; excess of protons and electrons over there due to trapped plasma.
Where is the warmer body from which heat is transiting to the colder corona in order to heat it?
steve (14:50:58) :
Tallbloke, it is not a matter of selecting a study of new dam construction affects on sea level to believe. If it is perhaps you know which study the IPCC relied upon to leave this factor or any of the other factors I mentioned out of the attribution tables.
Steve, I apologize if the difficulty I’m having understanding the grammar of these two sentences leads me to incorrectly interpret them, but if I get your meaning, what I’m trying to say is that the IPCC say they did include land based factors in their estimates. Clearly this conflicts with your scientists paper if they say all the sea level change can be accounted for by land use change. I don’t have any resolution to this inconsistency, nor the time to hunt for one at the moment. However, the uncertainty it throws up is duly noted.
Cheers
Wake up folks!
Stop arguing about the definition of heat and look at the graph!
It shows the Earth is loosing more heat as it warms up, thus disproving AGW.
It proves negative feedback!
It proves a shortwave forcing is responsible for the warming, since a system cant heat up and loose more energy without increasing the input energy (which is strangely enough due to the observed 5% decrease in low cloud, duh!)
Repeat, This one graph is all the evidence you need to disprove AGW!
Did anyone mention the massive amount of stored latent heat energy that the liquid ocean represents? How much energy would be released from the ocean if you froze it, an awful lot!
cba (17:32:12) :
“” tallbloke (05:12:16)
… stored down to 700m…
“”
I have some basic problems with that.
Rather than an a priori rejection based on a misunderstanding between the density curves of fresh and salt water, I came at it from the other direction. I did the calcs on how much heat must be stored to account for the estimated thermal expansion, and the depth to which it is stored implied by the gradient of temperature from the base of the surface mixed zone to the thermocline, which is pretty linear. All my calcs worked out quite neatly, so I then looked at the how.
I had difficulty understanding it too. So I went and asked an oceanologist how the received energy is propogated downwards. He told me that below the depth waves mix the water to (50 metres in the tropics, deeper in the southern ocean where the rollers are really big), tidal action and current subduction does the job.
Now I’ve read elsewhere that you need to be careful about which oceanologist you talk to, because there are as many theories of oceanology as there are oceanologists. I find the uncertainty this implies faintly unsurprising. However, either the energy gets down there somehow, or the satellite altimetry and it’s interpretation is all to cock, ARGO buoys tell complete porkies, Phil Jones is lying his head off about SST’s, and we may as well all pack up and head to speculation city.
Leif Svalgaard (16:22:36) :
tallbloke (13:58:06) :
The long term changes in LOD (multi-decadal) affect long term changes in SST (multi-decadal).
‘affect’ is a weasel word. By what mechanism? Does Gross claim this too? Why not?
Not so far as I’m aware. I don’t know what his personal ideas are, because he hasn’t told me, or you. Perhaps in his position, he has chosen to hold his peace. Speculations on a postcard.
I have several ideas about mechanism. I’m already well acquainted with your objections to them, which are duly noted and not ignored. For now I’ve chosen to discuss them elsewhere. This is partly in deference to Anthony’s wishes, and partly because we tend to focus too narrowly on these issues and miss the other interesting stuff happening on these threads.
Nasif Nahle (23:28:37) :
Sorry for them (the authors of the paper);
You can feel sorry for The National Research Council too: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=21
and for every other climatologist out there.
This is accepted usage and is therefore correct, the way language evolves. This is really my only point.
Nasif Nahle (23:00:16) :
Yes, temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of a thermodynamic system:
T = 1/[ΔS/ΔU] at constant volume (V) and number of particles (N), or:
[1/2 mv^2] = 3/2 kT
Nasif, I’m not trained in particle physics, so I wonder of you could help me. I’ve been trying to follow your discussion (!) with Leif and wondered if your position has any bearing on the conundrum I’m tackling with respect to the way solar energy entering the oceans must be propogated downwards to account for observed ocean ‘heat content’. You seem to be saying that once the solar energy is absorbed into the ocean, it is no longer ‘heat’ but part of the overall ocean energy, and must be accounted for in either the gravitational potential, the internal energy, or the kinetic energy.
Can you see a way any of those three might be able to transfer energy downwards to depths of 700m or more, well beyond the 70m or so that is the limit of where the transfer of energy from incoming solar radiation to the water molecules and metallic ions and chloride ions takes place? For example, could gravity differentiate those molecules or ions which have absorbed solar energy from those which haven’t?
Thanks for your help.
Leif, I think you are both right. But as an example of the way such idiomatic use as you propose can lead to incorrect thinking which can pervade an entire branch of science I offer this:
A warmist said the air heated the ocean.
I pointed out that the air doesn’t heat the ocean, but it might slow it’s rate of cooling.
He claimed that this amounted to the same thing because the air heated the ocean by slowing down the rate it cools at.
“!!!!!!!!!!!!!” I replied.
I’d like your view on the question I posed for Nasif above if you have time.
Open question:
Could the changing shape of water molecule affect it’s buoyancy?
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/molecule.html
The experimental values for gaseous water molecule are O-H length 0.95718 Å, H-O-H angle 104.474° [64].e. These values are not maintained in liquid water, where ab initio (O-H length 0.991 Å, H-O-H angle 105.5° [90]) and diffraction studies (O-H length 1.01 Å, O-D length 0.98 Å [1485]; O-D length 0.970 Å, D-O-D angle 106° [91])f suggest slightly greater values, which are caused by the hydrogen bonding weakening the covalent bonding and reducing the repulsion between the electron orbitals. These bond lengths and angles are likely to change, due to polarization shifts, in different hydrogen-bonded environments and when the water molecules are bound to solutes and ions. Commonly used molecular models use O-H lengths of between 0.957 Å and 1.00 Å and H-O-H angles of 104.52° to 109.5°.
Tallbloke, I don’t think you had any trouble understanding my last statement. You replied that you don’t have time to run down the studies on other attributing factors to rising sea level. This appears to be the same solution those attributing sea levels for the IPCC came to.
steve (03:32:01) :
Tallbloke, I don’t think you had any trouble understanding my last statement. You replied that you don’t have time to run down the studies on other attributing factors to rising sea level. This appears to be the same solution those attributing sea levels for the IPCC came to.
Steve, on re-reading it, I had no trouble. Apologies for my initial confusion.
Maybe the IPCC decided that given the evidence for the other factors they had identified, your author’s had overstated their case. Without ploughing through the IPCC references, we don’t know. I don’t have the time. Do you?
It’s called weighing the balance of evidence.
Steve,
here’s the abstract of your paper. I note they say their study accounts for all variation in sea level rise. Not that it accounts for all sea level rise.
Also, it was published in 2008 as you originally noted, well after the last IPCC report. Glad I didn’t start ploughing through that pile of *snip* again. 😉
Anyway, I’m not sure I fully agree with them, because the swell and fall associated with the ’98 el nino looks pretty obvious to me, but without reading the full paper, I don’t know what smoothing techniques they’ve applied, or what other factors they removed from the curve before matching their data to the residuals. Also, how would they explain the recent fall in rise rate, which is equivalent to a lot of three gorge projects?
Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level
B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li
By reconstructing the history of water impoundment in the world’s artificial reservoirs, we show that a total of ~10,800 cubic kilometers of water has been impounded on land to date, reducing the magnitude of global sea level (GSL) rise by –30.0 millimeters, at an average rate of –0.55 millimeters per year during the past half century. This demands a considerably larger contribution to GSL rise from other (natural and anthropogenic) causes than otherwise required. The reconstructed GSL history, accounting for the impact of reservoirs by adding back the impounded water volume, shows an essentially constant rate of rise at +2.46 millimeters per year over at least the past 80 years. This value is contrary to the conventional view of apparently variable GSL rise, which is based on face values of observation.
Steve, one more thing. Their study agrees well with my model, which shows a pretty steady rise in ocean heat content from 1920 to 2003, as derived from my method for cumulatively counting sunspots by consecutively adding and subtracting their magnitudes above and below the ocean equilibrium value I have determined, and factoring in changes in LOD.
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif
Leif,
you wrote “It is very simple: in climate studies [page 2, line 4 of the paper] “one generally finds the total ocean heat content expressed in units of 10^22 J””.
In actual fact, it is the CHANGE in heat content dQ that they are expressing. When we say the ocean has a heat content we are obliged to ask “in relation to what?” It is the same as saying a stone has a potential energy. We would say it has a potential energy in comparison to the earths surface (if the stone was aloft) or perhaps we would be comparing it to the height from a table to the floor in our living room.
Similiarly ocean heat content is devoid of meaning in absolute terms. Climate science is saying something like “if ocean temps increase at x degrees/decade then there must have been a quantity of heat Q joules/decade to cause that to happen. They can then compare this to the assumed radiative imbalance in watts/m2. It follows that z watts/m2 over a period of time is equivalent to a quantity of joules. This should agree with common sense.
There is also a climate change effect from this. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which the ocean and the air were at the same temperature. No heat could therefore flow from the ocean to the air. Let there now be a radiative imbalance that adds a quanity Q joules causing ocean temps to rise. There now would exist a temperature gradient that allows heat to flow from the ocean to the air.
At risk of repetition I will say again: absolute ocean heat has no meaning. It is the difference between these two points in time that is relevant to climate studies because it implies a radiative imbalance. Ocean heat content has meaning only when compared to something having a different temperature. And even then it is only the DIFFERENCE in temperature that is important. For example, it matters not a jot whether 2 bodies in contact have temperatures of 100 degrees and 200 degrees respectively or 1100 and 1200 degrees. The SAME amount of work will be extracted. The SAME amount of energy will flow.
Tallbloke, let me ask one simple question. If 750-800 km3* of groundwater is extracted each year per Konikow and Kendy Hydrogeology Journal Vol 13 NO1 March 2005, then where is the study that shows an inconsequential percentage of this very large amount makes it’s way to the ocean? I don’t mean to keep harping on this topic but it seems to me outlandish to declare we can determine ocean heat content by sea level rise when we have so little available information on what actually attributes to the rise in sea level. I will drop this now. I think I have made my point that if anything deserves skepticism then this issue definately does.
tallbloke (00:43:51) :
A reasonable point of view.
The fact that the energy gets there is the part we DO know. The uncertainty comes with WHAT MECHANISMS provide the diapyncal mixing for the energy to gets there.
tallbloke (01:15:28) :
It seems that you already answered your own question above.
Leif Svalgaard (00:04:27) :
Since this meme doesn’t seem to be dissipating, I’ll give it a try.
I’d guess that some other transfer of energy (other than classical “heating”) is occurring and breaking into heat in the corona. What’s your opinion?
steve (05:21:07) :
it seems to me outlandish to declare we can determine ocean heat content by sea level rise when we have so little available information on what actually attributes to the rise in sea level. I will drop this now. I think I have made my point that if anything deserves skepticism then this issue definately does.
Steve, I agree there is much uncertainty. You are right to raise these issues. I have created a way of looking at this stuff which doesn’t rely on absolute quantities we are not sure of. i.e. ocean heat content. My model works by comparing relative values and by scale and proportion. It can accommodate updated figures. I think this is a reasonable way to work towards a better understanding of how it all fits together. What I do know is that my calcs on OHC fit with the observed rise in SST’s and the dropoff of temp to the thermocline. In short, I’m fairly confident I’m on the ballpark.
Thanks for the heads up on the issues you have raised.
oms (06:12:34) :
tallbloke (00:43:51) :
So I went and asked an oceanologist how the received energy is propogated downwards. He told me that below the depth waves mix the water to (50 metres in the tropics, deeper in the southern ocean where the rollers are really big), tidal action and current subduction does the job.
A reasonable point of view.
tallbloke (01:15:28) :
Can you see a way any of those three might be able to transfer energy downwards to depths of 700m or more, well beyond the 70m or so that is the limit of where the transfer of energy from incoming solar radiation …
It seems that you already answered your own question above.
Well, someone else answered my question, James Annan actually, a noted AGW scientist. But I want a second opinion and maybe another theory from a physicist because the late Bob Sterling said modelers (like Annan) love to posit subducting warm currents to help their models along, but he’d never found one in 30 years of roaming the oceans taking measurements…
But it has to get down there somehow….
It’s a good puzzle.
🙂
“here’s the abstract of your paper. I note they say their study accounts for all variation in sea level rise. Not that it accounts for all sea level rise.”
Yes, I’m not sure if you are saying this as a point or to correct me. If it is to correct me I would have you note I stated sea level rise variations.
I will take some time and look at what you have done. I do think you should consider the variables I have pointed out and acknowledge that the amounts of water involved cannot be justifiably ignored.
Sandy (18:44:59) :
“Sea water which has an average salinity of around 3.5% exhibits NO maximum density before it freezes; for salinity of 2.47% or higher; where it freezes somewhere around -2.5 degC.”
Hmm if seawater density continued going up all the way to freezing then at the bottom of the ocean pressure alone would cause freezing. Salinity might lower the temp. at which density is at a minimum but the minimum must be there or the oceans would be solid at a few hundred feet.
No, look at the phase diagram of water, water has an anomalous property that its solidus slopes towards lower temperature at higher pressure, that is why water doesn’t freeze at the bottom of the ocean it has nothing to do with a maximum (sic) density. The first poster is correct sea water has a maximum density at its freezing point.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/ice/h2ophase.gif
Tallbloke thanks for the conversation. I see that you agree there are uncertainties that have not been properly addressed and that is all I really wanted. Good luck with your work on SSTs and sunspots. I am not sure what mechanism you are relying on to provide the increase in SSTs but the correlation does look impressive.
Leif Svalgaard (00:02:02) :
Nasif Nahle (23:12:35) :
The units of specific heat capacity are J/Kg K.
No, all that is required is a way of removing the reference to the ’size’ of the body, be it measured in kg or m^3 or moles or whatever. To make the difference between an extensive and an intrinsic property.
No? Then tell me: what the units of specific heat capacity (Cp) are? Again, Leif… The units of heat are watts, that is Joules/second (J/s) because it is energy in transit. The units of energy are Watts*second (W*s) or Joules (J). Q is heat, i.e. energy in transit. You’re again confounding units and concepts, I don’t know with which purpose.
Read the basics from Wikipedia, given that you like it in extreme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_watts_in_a_joule
And I gift you this example:
Q (heat) = m (Cp) (ΔT/Δt)
Q (heat) = 0.000157 Kg (871 J/Kg * K) (1.23 K/60 s) = 0.0028 J/s = 0.0028 W
See the units?
The heat content has nothing to do with ‘available’ energy [it is in fact not available once it is heat – entropy never decreases] and has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy. And the oceans have a certain heat capacity [ability to store heat], determined by their volume [or at least the volume considered].
Of course not! Except for the amount of energy in transit which is absorbed by the system and becomes a portion of the available energy.
As I have tell you many times, heat is not gravitational potential energy, neither kinetic energy, neither internal energy; it is Energy in transit and stops being heat immediately it is absorbed by a system.
There is really no need to bring in all these straw men [like ‘heat is photons’ and the unit of heat [dQ] is Watt while that of Q is Joule, etc]. It is very simple: in climate studies [page 2, line 4 of the paper] “one generally finds the total ocean heat content expressed in units of 10^22 J”
What a confusion of the authors, uh? They are messing internal energy with heat. 🙂
In http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf you can find an authoritative [you like authorities] discussion of the issues of heat storage, H, in the oceans. The quantity dH/dt is a measure of ‘Global Warming’, which makes H(t), the heat stored in the system at any given time, t, a very interesting and important number.
Heat, a process, cannot be stored. Energy is stored. As I have told you many times, AGWers tend to confound scientific concepts, laws, theories, etc., and it is not a matter of jargon. Could you store photosynthesis or cell respiration? Now that you have introduced Enthalpy into this discussion, would you like to expand on this topic?
Leif Svalgaard (01:10:25) :
Nasif Nahle (23:28:37) :
Sorry for them (the authors of the paper);
You can feel sorry for The National Research Council too: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=21
and for every other climatologist out there.
This is accepted usage and is therefore correct, the way language evolves. This is really my only point.
Solipsism? As I have said, climatology and probably solar physics are creating this confusion. Ask a physicist!
It is not my fault the ignorance of the NRC on physics issues; it’s not my fault the NRC neglects the correct, clean, unpolluted science.
tallbloke (02:33:44) :
Leif, I think you are both right. But as an example of the way such idiomatic use as you propose can lead to incorrect thinking which can pervade an entire branch of science I offer this…
It is not about being right or wrong. It is about what the accepted and used term is in climate studies, In order to communicate one must use the accepted terminology [e.g. the one used by the National Research Council], which is used by everybody, and is not what ‘I propose’. I just go along so I can understand what they are talking about.
Vincent (05:02:22) :
Similiarly ocean heat content is devoid of meaning in absolute terms.
Absolutely not. It is very well determined. The ‘total energy content’ is what is undefined for the reasons you describe. The ‘heat content’ is the amount of kinetic energy in the random, chaotic movements of the molecules, and that is a quantity that can be determined locally simply by inspection of the medium, e.g. by measuring the sound speed or the temperature. The speeds are in relation to the bulk of the medium. That the medium is hurtling through space at enormous speeds [Earth moves at 30 km/s around the Sun] is immaterial. The heat content is a local and absolute quantity. I can in the laboratory cool something to VERY close to absolute zero, so its heat content becomes effectively zero. Heat content is not a ‘relative’ thing.
Nasif Nahle (08:12:26) :
climatology and probably solar physics are creating this confusion. Ask a physicist!
There is no confusion. Very early on, I sent you a quote from Leonard Susskind. Google him. He is a physicist, one of the best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind
Leif Svalgaard (08:43:23) :
tallbloke (02:33:44) :
Leif, I think you are both right. But as an example of the way such idiomatic use as you propose can lead to incorrect thinking which can pervade an entire branch of science I offer this…
It is not about being right or wrong. It is about what the accepted and used term is in climate studies, In order to communicate one must use the accepted terminology [e.g. the one used by the National Research Council], which is used by everybody, and is not what ‘I propose’. I just go along so I can understand what they are talking about.
It is about physical theories and laws, Leif. Climatology is a factual science and it is WRONG some climatologists are using false, unclear and imprecise terminology. The matter is not “accepted terminology”; it’s not a matter of “jargon”, it’s a matter of theories. You and your “climatologists” are leaving out from the field of CLEAN physics.
Leif Svalgaard (08:43:23) :
Vincent (05:02:22) :
Similiarly ocean heat content is devoid of meaning in absolute terms.
Absolutely not. It is very well determined. The ‘total energy content’ is what is undefined for the reasons you describe. The ‘heat content’ is the amount of kinetic energy in the random, chaotic movements of the molecules, and that is a quantity that can be determined locally simply by inspection of the medium, e.g. by measuring the sound speed or the temperature. The speeds are in relation to the bulk of the medium. That the medium is hurtling through space at enormous speeds [Earth moves at 30 km/s around the Sun] is immaterial. The heat content is a local and absolute quantity. I can in the laboratory cool something to VERY close to absolute zero, so its heat content becomes effectively zero. Heat content is not a ‘relative’ thing.
Leif, you’re sinking again in your own ignorance about thermodynamics. Show me from any book or Wikipedia, if you would prefer it, that internal energy and total available content of energy are undefined. If it was so, what the purpose of thermodynamics would be? It is not well defined only for people who don’t understand thermodynamics.
Heat is also well defined, it is the energy in transit transferred from a system to another system, that is why its units includes time, i.e. J/SECOND.
Once again, “heat content” is a void term. Any system cannot contain process quatities.
Sorry for not being specific. Not all climatologists are using false, unclear and imprecise terminology. Most of them understand that heat cannot be stored or contained, even in an assumed “void” solar corona. There is plasma in the corona, i.e. charged particles.
oms (06:17:10) :
I’d guess that some other transfer of energy (other than classical “heating”) is occurring and breaking into heat in the corona. What’s your opinion?
There is no transfer of heat. There is generation of heat. In the solar core there is also generation of heat [by a different process, though]. Even you can generate heat at will: rub your hands together, or strike a match.
In none of these cases is there a transfer of heat from a warmer to a colder body. So, to restrict the usage of the word ‘heat’ to that situation is not very useful. What happens is that you convert one form of energy [mechanical, chemical, potential, nuclear, electromagnetic, etc] into heat [the kinetic energy of random, chaotic motions of the molecules], resulting in a rise of temperature in the medium. This heat is stored in the body until you expose the body to a colder environment at which point some of the heat can be transferred to the colder body, resulting in cooling.
steve (07:52:42) :
I do think you should consider the variables I have pointed out and acknowledge that the amounts of water involved cannot be justifiably ignored.
I don’t think I am ignoring them. My calcs concern what water there was estimated to be in the oceans between 1993-2003, how much sea level rose in that time, an estimate of how much of that was due to thermal expansion, and the amount of solar energy needed to be retained to do that.
The question of exactly how much was kept out by new dams, how much went in through draining of wetlands and loss of trees etc I’ll have to leave to the bean counters. The authors of your paper say new dams have withheld 10,800km^3 of water on land to date. Unfortunately in the abstract, they don’t say from what date. If we take the worst case scenario and assume they mean reservoirs built in the last 80 years and no other process compensated for it, then my study will have missed 1,300 of sea level rise which would have happened in addition to the 10,800 measured rise 1993-2003. The amount of rise due to thermal expansion is around 50% of the total according to the IPCC but if that is based on the residual after other factors are taken into consideration, and we assume the IPCC forgot new reservoirs, then it’ll be a bit more – I think. (It’s a bit of a braintwister)
So we are left with me needing to account for the energy required to heat the oceans enough to increase in volume by 6050Km^3 rather than 5400Km^3. So I may have understimated the rise in ocean heat content 1993-2003 by around 10%, the overall result being uncertain by a margin of, at a guess, 15%
I’m not a stickler for exact quantities, except when the barman is topping up my pint, so I can live with that.
Cheers, and thanks again for keeping me aware of uncertainty.
Nasif Nahle (09:12:51) :
Show me from any book or Wikipedia, if you would prefer it, that internal energy and total available content of energy are undefined.
Vincent was talking about ‘total energy content’, not your ‘total available energy’. The ‘internal energy’ is also a bit undefined: does it include nuclear binding energy, for instance’. What you mean is ‘thermal energy’ also known as ‘heat’ which is the kinetic energy of the random, disorganized motion of the molecules measured by the temperature of the body. And, of course, ‘thermal energy’ or ‘heat’ is not available to do work. Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer ‘available’. To make it do work you need to connect it to another reservoir with a lower temperature and it it this other reservoir and its temperature that determine the amount of work you can get done.
Leif Svalgaard (09:20:38) :
There is no transfer of heat. There is generation of heat. In the solar core there is also generation of heat [by a different process, though]. Even you can generate heat at will: rub your hands together, or strike a match.
In none of these cases is there a transfer of heat from a warmer to a colder body. So, to restrict the usage of the word ‘heat’ to that situation is not very useful. What happens is that you convert one form of energy [mechanical, chemical, potential, nuclear, electromagnetic, etc] into heat [the kinetic energy of random, chaotic motions of the molecules], resulting in a rise of temperature in the medium. This heat is stored in the body until you expose the body to a colder environment at which point some of the heat can be transferred to the colder body, resulting in cooling.
Absolutely nonsense.
Nasif:
Please, pretty please, would you have a go at my question ?
You seem to be saying that once the solar energy is absorbed into the ocean, it is no longer ‘heat’ but part of the overall ocean energy, and must be accounted for in either the gravitational potential, the internal energy, or the kinetic energy.
Can you see a way any of those three might be able to transfer energy downwards to depths of 700m or more, well beyond the 70m or so that is the limit of where the transfer of energy from incoming solar radiation to the water molecules and metallic ions and chloride ions takes place? For example, could gravity differentiate those molecules or ions which have absorbed more solar energy from those which have absorbed less?
You might have a look at the quote from the site about the change in bond lengths and hydrogen atom angle too.
Thanks for your help.
The mechanism by which the bulk ocean temperature is, or rather was, set needs some thought given that there seems to be substantial doubt as to how the current amount of energy in the ocean deeps got there in the first place given that downward mixing encounters significant obstacles. Not least the fact that the direction of energy flow is always ocean to air albeit at varying rates. Indeed the net energy flow is always from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the oceans with the temperature of the Earth’s crust below the oceans being the only thing to set an irreducible minimum at any given time.
The varying solar input only gets in so far but apparently far enough in for (in my opinion) the oceans to then vary the rate of release of that energy to the air.
The question of the average energy content of all the vast bulk of the oceans is very important because that ultimately sets the temperature of the air above.
As the oceans formed they received an initial energy boost from the sun. As they grew deeper only the upper layers continued to be warmed by the solar shortwave input. The lower layers gradually became more and more detached from solar influences and so it went on for aeons. However the lower layers retained energy from that initial solar exposure and never went lower than was permitted by the temperature of the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans.
Now the point of all this is that the ocean bulk is so large that if we try to think in terms of some sort of Earthly equilibrium temperature then it is going to be set by that ocean bulk and not by anything that happens in the air.
Now that the solar effects are limited to upper layers of the oceans not even the behaviour of the sun is variable enough to make a significant difference to the temperature of that ocean bulk over less than geological periods of time.
Minor changes in the air do not have a chance. The Earth’s equilibrium temperature is not set by events in the air but by long past events setting the temperature of the ocean bulk wherever it now is set. Admittedly there will be slow long term variations from the deep oceans caused by the oceanic conveyor belts but their effects are insignificant on timescales relevant to us.
In terms of timescales that have any significance for mankind neither solar nor human activity nor changes in the air alone can have any effect on that basic background ‘equilibrium’ temperature set by the deep ocean bulk.
However, human, solar, air and oceanic variations will have an effect on the rate of transmission of newly arriving solar energy through the system. Within that group of potential variations the human effect is miniscule.
Whenever those variations try to change the background ‘equilibrium’ temperature of the Earth they fail to do so in the face of that monolithic mass of deep oceanic water.
Instead the rate of energy transfer from surface to space changes in order to maintain stability so whatever changes occur from solar, human, air or upper oceanic influences on the rate of that energy flow the air circulation systems shift latitudinally to adjust the rate of energy flow to space proportionately. Essentially it is ALWAYS a negative response to the initial influence on air temperature whether it be up or down because, quite simply, that is what the air does and it does it by adjusting the speed of the hydrological cycle.
The air circulation systems will ALWAYS work to move air temperatures back towards the basic background ‘equilibrium’ set by the ocean bulk.
All weather and climate is just that process in action.
Not only is the net process always negative but additionally it is also proportionate to the initial forcing.
Now, what shall I call this theory ?
The Hot Water Bottle Effect perhaps ?
Nasif Nahle (09:05:54) :
You and your “climatologists” are leaving out from the field of CLEAN physics.
Hey, they are not ‘my’ climatologists. I just when reading their papers adopt their terminology [which I also happen to think is sensible and useful]. I would not says that these ‘climatologists are using false, unclear and imprecise terminology’ when talking about Pielke, Douglass, the NRC, Domingues, Willis, Tsonis, Levitus, etc.
Heat is also well defined, it is the energy in transit transferred from a system to another system, that is why its units includes time, i.e. J/SECOND.
Please Nasif stop this nonsense as you have undertaken on several occasions, the units of heat are Joules not Watts! Anyone claiming to be the ‘winner’ in a thermodynamic discussion who makes such a claim is the ‘loser’ whether he thinks so or not. Look at the conservation of energy in a control volume analysis in any thermo textbook, one of the terms will be Qdot, the rate of heat added to the cv, it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.
Additionally, if the temperature of the Earth’s crust beneath the oceans sets an irreducible minimum temperature for the deep oceans then it follows that on geological timescales the ultimate physical mechanism setting the Earth’s overall temperature is the amount of energy released from activity in the Earth’s core.
That would explain why the ice ages always ended and why if there was a ‘snowball’ Earth a recovery was nevertheless possible.
It is the maintanance of our deep oceans at a temperature above that at which it would have frozen that maintains our liquid oceans and it is because our oceans are liquid that a hydrological cycle is possible and it is that cycle which prevents the liquid from escaping to space.
The system must have all necessary negative feedbacks required to prevent both freezing and evaporation to space of all our oceans.
Those built in negative feedbacks give us a bonus feature in neutralising ANY initial forcings affecting the air alone and which try to change the basic equilibrium temperature of the entire system.
Leif Svalgaard (09:31:04) :
Vincent was talking about ‘total energy content’, not your ‘total available energy’. The ‘internal energy’ is also a bit undefined: does it include nuclear binding energy, for instance’. What you mean is ‘thermal energy’ also known as ‘heat’ which is the kinetic energy of the random, disorganized motion of the molecules measured by the temperature of the body. And, of course, ‘thermal energy’ or ‘heat’ is not available to do work. Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer ‘available’. To make it do work you need to connect it to another reservoir with a lower temperature and it it this other reservoir and its temperature that determine the amount of work you can get done.
Well, briefly, Vincent is applying wrongly the theory of heat. Not physics fault, but his, ok?
Now let’s see your assertions:
The ‘internal energy’ is also a bit undefined: does it include nuclear binding energy, for instance’.
Yes, it includes it. Internal energy is composed by the next types:
Sensible energy, latent energy, chemical energy and nuclear energy.
What you mean is ‘thermal energy’ also known as ‘heat’ which is the kinetic energy of the random, disorganized motion of the molecules measured by the temperature of the body.
Thermal energy is included into “energy interactions” which are recognized only after the energy crosses the boundary of the thermodynamic system.
Sensible energy is kinetic energy, not heat.
And, of course, ‘thermal energy’ or ‘heat’ is not available to do work. Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer ‘available’.
1. And, of course, ‘thermal energy’ or ‘heat’ is not available to do work.
Would you wish to expand our discussion talking about heat sources and heat sinks? Go on… 🙂
2. Complete this assertion, please: “Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer available.” To do work or what?
Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer available. To make it do work you need to connect it to another reservoir with a lower temperature and it it this other reservoir and its temperature that determine the amount of work you can get done.
Heh! Your own words, Leif… You’re crediting me. 🙂
The next words from my previous post are mine:
Thermal energy is included into “energy interactions” which are recognized only after the energy crosses the boundary of the thermodynamic system.
Sensible energy is kinetic energy, not heat.
Phil. (09:41:50) :
Please Nasif stop this nonsense as you have undertaken on several occasions, the units of heat are Joules not Watts! Anyone claiming to be the ‘winner’ in a thermodynamic discussion who makes such a claim is the ‘loser’ whether he thinks so or not. Look at the conservation of energy in a control volume analysis in any thermo textbook, one of the terms will be Qdot, the rate of heat added to the cv, it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.
What is heat, phil? Heh!
Nasif Nahle (10:25:36) :
Heh! Your own words, Leif… You’re crediting me.
Not exactly, as you were talking about ‘available’ energy. And, here and there you do find a corn, even if by accident.
It is illiteracy on physics issues what gave birth to Anthropogenic Global Warming ideas. The thing is evident:
Phil says that Watts = Joules 🙂
For your information, Watts is a unit of power (heat, not energy) and it is equivalent to Joules/second (power), not to Joules alone.
W*s (energy) = J (energy)
Revise your 101physics book. Heh!
Leif Svalgaard (10:33:10) :
Nasif Nahle (10:25:36) :
Heh! Your own words, Leif… You’re crediting me.
Not exactly, as you were talking about ‘available’ energy. And, here and there you do find a corn, even if by accident.
🙂 (Big smiley face and slight slaps on your shoulder)
Stephen Wilde (09:39:36) :
This statement is factually incorrect. In typical eastern boundary currents, the ocean absorbs a substantial amount of heat from the atmosphere.
This is also factually incorrect. The observed stratification of the oceans indicates that diapycnal mixing (with accompanying downward heat transport) must almost certainly be happening.
It seems strange that you would expect an upward heat flux given that the top of the ocean is typically warmer than the bottom. Wouldn’t intuition suggest, even in the absence of turbulent mixing, that heat diffusion moves heat downward?
Nasif Nahle (10:38:46) :
It is illiteracy on physics issues what gave birth to Anthropogenic Global Warming ideas. The thing is evident:
Phil says that Watts = Joules 🙂
No I didn’t, stop behaving like an idiot!
For your information, Watts is a unit of power (heat, not energy) and it is equivalent to Joules/second (power), not to Joules alone.
W*s (energy) = J (energy)
I know, that’s exactly what I said.
Revise your 101physics book. Heh!
No need it’s yours that needs revising, or more to the point your reading of it.
>> Nasif Nahle (10:38:46) :
Phil says that Watts = Joules 🙂 <<
Phil said nothing of the sort. You’re confusing the distance traveled with how fast you get there. The unit of heat is the calorie (or Btu). It’s an energy unit, not a power unit.
Jim
Phil. (10:56:14) :
No I didn’t, stop behaving like an idiot!
Bolds are mine… So the thing goes personal, aha? You’ll see, I’ll call my mother in law… You’ll see…
W*s (energy) = J (energy)
I know, that’s exactly what I said.
Nope, you said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J
No need it’s yours that needs revising, or more to the point your reading of it.
That the reason by which AGW ideas exist.
Jim Masterson (11:01:51) :
Nasif Nahle (10:38:46) :
Phil says that Watts = Joules 🙂 <<
Phil said nothing of the sort. You’re confusing the distance traveled with how fast you get there. The unit of heat is the calorie (or Btu). It’s an energy unit, not a power unit.
Jim
Again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J
A question for Jim Masterson:
What is heat?
oms (10:47:05) :
Stephen Wilde (09:39:36) :
…the direction of energy flow is always ocean to air albeit at varying rates.
This statement is factually incorrect. In typical eastern boundary currents, the ocean absorbs a substantial amount of heat from the atmosphere.
Indeed the net energy flow is always from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the oceans with the temperature of the Earth’s crust below the oceans being the only thing to set an irreducible minimum at any given time.
This is also factually incorrect. The observed stratification of the oceans indicates that diapycnal mixing (with accompanying downward heat transport) must almost certainly be happening.
It seems strange that you would expect an upward heat flux given that the top of the ocean is typically warmer than the bottom. Wouldn’t intuition suggest, even in the absence of turbulent mixing, that heat diffusion moves heat downward?
Replies as follows:
1)The net direction of flow globally. There can be local temporary exceptions but I debate whether the ocean ever absorbs a substantial amount of energy from the air. Even in the example you mention the main energy input is solar.
2) The net global flow throughout the oceans. There can be local exceptions
3) The top is warmer than the depths due to the upper layers being closer to the solar influence. Once the solar shortwave energy has been absorbed by the water then the net overall movement of that energy globally is then upward not downward.
4) The overall net loss of energy from ocean to air is never reversed. The speed of energy loss from oceans to air can however vary due to local temporary phenomena such as you describe. I think that on a global scale it is those local temporary phenomena which combine with all the other forces acting on or within the oceans to create the observed oceanic phase shifts at 30 year intervals. There is probably nothing permanent or fixed about the interval. I imagine it changes over time but throughout our period of observations the oceans have always switched phase at about 30 years.
>> Nasif Nahle (11:09:34) :
A question for Jim Masterson:
What is heat? <<
Already answered. See my 22:01:13 post last night on this thread.
Jim
Dear Cobloggers…
You can see how AGWers are trying to distort, change and corrupt the scientific theories only with the purpose of their ideas fit into science. Nevertheless, AGW is pseudoscience. Now they are trying to twist the physical concept of “heat”. From now on, my motto will be “Scientia Redivivus”.
I invite Phil, Svalgaard and Masterson to answer straightly the next questions:
What is heat?
What is energy?
What is power?
What is work?
Please, give references.
>> Nasif Nahle (11:08:27) :
Again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J <<
The antecedent of “it” was “Qdot.” Newton first used the dot notation to indicate the time derivative (he co-invented the Calculus). “Qdot” is a power term. “Q” is an energy term. It’s easy to follow.
Jim
Nasif, you are just not being accurate anymore.
Nasif, your understanding of heat and temperature in regards to AGW is just not right.
Jacob Mack (11:42:11) :
Nasif, you are just not being accurate anymore.
Sorry for having dissappointed you, Jacob. I walk with real science.
Jacob Mack (11:43:01):
Nasif, your understanding of heat and temperature in regards to AGW is just not right.
Please, explain.
Jim Masterson (11:27:40) :
Nasif Nahle (11:08:27) :
Again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J <<
The antecedent of “it” was “Qdot.” Newton first used the dot notation to indicate the time derivative (he co-invented the Calculus). “Qdot” is a power term. “Q” is an energy term. It’s easy to follow.
Jim
Once again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J
Nasif you are digging a hole. I suggest you stop digging.
Perhaps this will help:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070612222659AAEx9un
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
or this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_convert_watts_to_joules
And please stop dominating the thread with this discussion.
– Anthony Joules-per-second
Heat can be measured in calories, the SI unit, the joule, or BTU’s. Coastal areas tend to have cooler temps due to water’s high heat capacity, and high specific heat as well. The argument of whether heat is actually energy/kinetic energy or is moved by collisions of molecules–their kinetic energy, is almost moot, beacause, heat can and is stored, as evidenced through General Chemistry experiments in college labs, and Phsyical Chemistry labs as well.
Okay backing up for a minute: energy is the capacity to do work, so under normal circumstances heat does no work, but in nature and in heat engines, heat in fact does work, so heat may be considered energy. Work is done to achieve motion against an opposing force. The Earth is an open system, hence why more energy is added to the system by the sun, and why plenty of energy escapes the system to space as well, however, GHG naturally hold in some heat energy which is then transferred due to temperature diefferences, which also cause pressure differences in the atmosphere, which in turn carries heat and changes regional temperatures which influences a wide variety of weather patterns, and condensation/precipitation processes through cloud formations and other global system processes, and teleconnections. We can place advection and convection here, knoing this post needs to get back on the topic of heat and a little bit more about temperature.
Now, Peter Atkins does discuss heat in terms of q, and as the transfer of energy along with work as well, there is still an energy transfer and it can be stored in various mediums with different levels of heat capacity and specific heat capacity. (extensive/intensive properties) Temperature is an intensive property and is used to define the state of the system and determines the direction in which energy flows as heat.
The energy transferred by heat, is stored, so, getting away from a semantic game, we can see that heat transfers energy which is then stored, and since water takes longer to increase in temperature, there is no need for immediate or high magnitude energy loss after energy has transferred to the water.
In fact, winds over a body of water tends to take on the temperature (average kinetic energy) of the water below.
The randoms entropy, (S) heat loss consists of motion and oscillations in total, while temperature is the averaging out of all motions and oscillations.
Now I refer you guys to a different book by Peter Atkins, “Quanta, Matter and Change: A Molecular Approach to Physical Change.” (Also co-authored by Julio de Paula, Ron Friedman).
On Google Books, beginning on page 324, you can get a more sophisticated understanding of global warming. We see that despite the clear cut definition and explanation of heat made by Atkins, heat can be stored and the resutling temperatures will rise; or if you prefer, heat transfers energy which can be stored that rasies temperature. In a closed system it is as cut and dry and two bodies of varying temperature reaching thermal equilibrium, and in an open one this process exists, but in the latter, open system, many other factors influence heat transfer, temperature differences, and heat capacity as well.
Latitude and the resulting height of sun in relation to the Earth, (the orientation of the Earth to the sun at different latitudes and times of day) the aqauatic life density within the the oceans, and so forth will all influence how much heat transfer will occur and how well the oceans will store such energy, in addition to: thermohaline and deeper depth ocean mixing; fresh water has different properties to consider as well.
Well said moderator.
Anthony Joules-per-second
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Noooooo It’s WonderWatts!! come to save us from pedantry and scorn.
🙂
My dear “Anthony Joules-per-second” ….he who knew what Watts are!!
Great!
The Earth is an open system, hence why more energy is added to the system by the sun, and why plenty of energy escapes the system to space as well,
Jacob probably more like a ‘closed’ system since matter transfer can be ignored as a first approximation.
Nasif Nahle (12:01:20) :
Jim Masterson (11:27:40) :
Nasif Nahle (11:08:27) :
Again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J <<
The antecedent of “it” was “Qdot.” Newton first used the dot notation to indicate the time derivative (he co-invented the Calculus). “Qdot” is a power term. “Q” is an energy term. It’s easy to follow.
Jim
Once again, Phill said: “it has the units of Watts therefore heat must have the units of Joules.” That is: W = J
Once again as Jim said it is Qdot (the ‘it’) that has the units of Watts therefore heat (Q) must have the units of Joules.
The best explanation of thermodynamics available.
wattsupwiththat (12:05:34) :
Nasif you are digging a hole. I suggest you stop digging.
You are right. Some people will never understand. I stop digging.
Perhaps this will help:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070612222659AAEx9un
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
or this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_convert_watts_to_joules
Thank you, Anthony for those links. That’s exactly what I was saying. Thanks again.
And please stop dominating the thread with this discussion.
– Anthony Joules-per-second
Is this for me? It was Leif who brought the discussion to this thread. I only responded to his nonsense. From my side, I am stopping in this moment dominating the thread with this discussion.
I apologize 🙂
– Nasif Nahle “Sensei Sei Rigaku”
tallbloke (13:32:23) :
The best explanation of thermodynamics available.
Absolutely! When I read your post I thought of Flanders & Swan, I didn’t know they were on YouTube, thanks for posting it.
Nasif Nahle (13:44:12) : But…if you are right then there is no heat in the sea. Do you imagine the deep suffering you are going to inflict to NOAA?…their maps will be in black and white from now on..!!
vukcevic (02:31:24) :
Your ’junk science’ schemes look like an “earth dynamo”(a few million years and all that water will turn inte helium) 🙂
Seriously, very interesting. The southern magnetic pole it is now going north, so, will this affect el nino/la nina?
“”” Mark T (17:51:03) :
George E. Smith (16:44:08) :
And Wiki is the final arbiter of all things scientific ?
No, just the easiest reference to get to and likely the most common definition.
Notice what they say; “heat is the process…” clearly their idea of heat is that it is a verb.
Technically, a “process” is a noun, “””
No a process is something that happens; i.e. a verb. If you like, “process” is a noun in the same sense that “verb” is a noun.
The written description of a process may be a noun, but the process itself is verbal; something that happens. I’ve written many “process specifications” You wouldn’t believe what a chore it is to write a process spec document for say a Gallium Arsenide zinc diffusion process.
The most essential feature of following a process specification, is that you do NOTHING unless you are specifically told to do it.
So when doing a QA evaluation of a process spec, you simply follow the spec as written; do each and every thing; when you are told to do it, and never do anything at all that is not specifically written in the process spec.
So if you are told to put 200 ml of 18 megohm DI water into a 500 ml beaker; you better hope that somewhere before hand you were told to get hold of a 500 ml beaker.
But in any case; after finishing the writing of a working process spec; you have a document which specifies the process; but you have no “process”. Nothing happens, until you start running the process by doing the things you are told to do, and nothing that you are not told to do.
So a process is a verb; and verb is a noun; because the word itself is an object, and it isn’t doing anything.
See I told you that English is easy to learn.
Phil. (13:56:59) :
tallbloke (13:32:23) :
The best explanation of thermodynamics available.
Absolutely! When I read your post I thought of Flanders & Swan, I didn’t know they were on YouTube, thanks for posting it.
“And all the arguments in the universe are gonna cooooooooooool down”
“Yeah! That’s entropy man.”
🙂
Nogw (14:10:17) :
Nasif Nahle (13:44:12) : But…if you are right then there is no heat in the sea. Do you imagine the deep suffering you are going to inflict to NOAA?…their maps will be in black and white from now on..!!
It’s not me who is right; it’s all physicists of this world who are right. There is no heat in the sea, but energy.
The colors in maps represent temperature, not heat.
“”” Curiousgeorge (11:43:18) :
@ George E. Smith (10:28:02) : RE: Sampling theory.
I’ll second that motion. And also offer a fairly decent primer on such things – http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html . In the Process Analysis section. “””
Well I took a look at your reference, and it seems like it is more related to statistical mathematics than to sampled data systems.
The most fundamental law, in fact the very foundation of sampled data systems is the Nyquist Sampling Theorem (he was I believe a Bell Labs scientist in communication theory.
The whole concept of sampled data systems is that any well behaved continuous function can be completely represented by a discrete set of samples of that continuous function provided (a) the continuous function is a “band limited fucntion” meaning it contains NO signal information above some band limiting frequency; and (b) provided that the continuous function is sampled at a minimum rate of 2B where B is the band liming frequency. Another way of putting that is that you must take at least one sample during each half cycle of the highest signal frequency contained in the continuous function. The samples don’t have to be uniformly spaced but they cannot be further apart than that minimum spacing; so non uniform sampling requires more samples. As a practical matter it would require saving the sample times accurately in order to facilitate reconstruction of the original continuous function from the samples; if the sampling interval is not uniform.
If you do that; you can theoretically recover the complete continuous function from the set of samples. That would let you accurately calculate the value of the function at some intermediate point that was never actually measured. And having reconstructed the original continuous function in some calculable form, one could then proceed to analyse th function such as by computing the average value over some length of the function.
The problem that arises when you violate those two criteria (a & b), the reconstructed function is in error since it now contains noise signals that are fictitious, and totally unremovable since they are now inside the passband of the function.
For example, if the function is band limited to (B) and you sample at a rate (2B), the presence of an out of band signal say at (B+b), upon sampling will generate false (aliassed) signals at a frequency of (B-b) that are not present in the original signal function. In particlular an out of band signal at a frequency of (B+B), ; twice the intended band limit, results in an aliassed signal at (B-B) or zero frequency; and of course the zero frequency signal is simply the average of the continuous function.
Ergo violation of the Nyquist sampling criterion by just a factor of 2 renders even the average value of the function unrecoverable; it will be contaminated by completely unknown noise. And NO statistical prestidigitation will buy you a reprieve from a Nyquist violation. Don’t look to the central Limit theorem, or any other mathematical device; the error is now in band, and of unknown frequency (in most cases) so you can’t even eliminate it (along with some real signal) by narrow band line filters.
Everybody has seen aliassing noise on his TV set, or movie screen; it is what makes the wagon wheels rotate backwards. The wheel spokes generate a signal component that is above half the frame rate ; (the sampling rate), and the reconstructed movie aliasses the spoke frequency to something fake, and the wheels appear to go backwards.
So that’s why I don’t pay attention to GISStemp; it is not a proper representation of the global mean (surface) temperature
Sorry, George, but you are incorrect. This is basic grammar dude!
“A process” is using the word a noun, and more specifically, the phrase “a process” is an object, or a noun substitute, e.g., “The process of using a check requires that you sign your name.” “To process” would be usage as a verb, e.g., “I told you to process those checks!”
And, um, for the record, the word verb is a noun, too. Nouns often are often used to describe actions, but they are still nouns.
If you don’t believe me, look it up in the dictionary.
Mark
Phil,
if it (the Earth) were a closed system entropy (S) would be far higher than it is now; we would be boiling; but perhaps we can look at the atmosphere, as semipermeable, or a partial interface system, but I assure you that this planet is an open system.
tallbloke (04:40:43)
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/temp-hist-80.gif
Try aa instead of R.
(aa anomalies highlight 1940)
Basil, thanks for drawing my attention to this:
Carvalho, L.M.V.; Tsonis, A.A.; Jones, C.; Rocha, H.R.; & Polito, P.S. (2007). Anti-persistence in the global temperature anomaly field. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 14, 723-733.
http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/npg-14-723-2007.pdf
“[…] significant power exists in the 4-7 years band corresponding to ENSO. Such features, however, are broadband features and do not represent periodic signals; they are the result of nonlinear dynamics (e.g., Eccles and Tziperman, 2004). As such they should not be removed from the records.”
This seems consistent with W.W. Hsieh’s observation that post-1950 NH El Nino response has been nonlinear. This gives cause to review carefully the appropriateness of COWL signal removal (cold oceans – warm land).
I tracked this down:
Eccles, F.; & Tziperman, E. (2004). Nonlinear effects on ENSO’s period. Journal of Atmospheric Science 61, 474-482.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Eccles-Tziperman-2004.pdf
Tallbloke, the study states that, once ground sequestration of water is taken into account, sea level rise remains fairly constant at 2.45mm per year for the last 80 years. This indicates to me a sea level rise of 2.45mm per year for the years of interest to you 1993-2003. The IPCC states the rate of sea level rise from 1993 to 2003 at about 3.1mm per year. 3.1mm > 2.45mm There is no additional water to account for during this time period. Now, since you have no interest in examining the accuracy of the attribution, and since I have no interest in thermal expansion hypotheses based off flawed attributions, I guess we will agree to disagree.
Leif Svalgaard (09:31:04) :
Nasif Nahle (09:12:51) :
Show me from any book or Wikipedia, if you would prefer it, that internal energy and total available content of energy are undefined.
Vincent was talking about ‘total energy content’, not your ‘total available energy’. The ‘internal energy’ is also a bit undefined: does it include nuclear binding energy, for instance’. What you mean is ‘thermal energy’ also known as ‘heat’ which is the kinetic energy of the random, disorganized motion of the molecules measured by the temperature of the body. And, of course, ‘thermal energy’ or ‘heat’ is not available to do work. Once an energy form has turned into heat it is no longer ‘available’. To make it do work you need to connect it to another reservoir with a lower temperature and it it this other reservoir and its temperature that determine the amount of work you can get done.
One should add that kinetic energy by itself does no work either in orbits around the sun or in free space motion, or as steam ( until it meets a turbine).
steve (20:36:13) :
Tallbloke, the study states that, once ground sequestration of water is taken into account, sea level rise remains fairly constant at 2.45mm per year for the last 80 years.
The ARGO team reports an annual variation of 7 mm of the steric [due to density and temperature change only] sea level. Assuming that that is due to the 90 W/m2 [TOA] variation of TSI, the sensitivity of [steric] sea level to TSI is thus 7/90 = 0.08 mm/(W/m2) . Assuming for the sake of the argument that the 20th century increase of TSI was 1 W/m2 [I think less, but let’s use 1 just for the argument], then the total rise of [the steric] sea level during the 20th century would be just that, 0.08 mm.
Leif Svalgaard (22:34:26) :
Assuming that that is due to the 90 W/m2 [TOA] variation of TSI
This argument is a bit like the “So where’s the missing shilling” brainteaser. It works by distracting attention form the actual situation with plausible sounding statements.
To properly evaluate your argument, we need to consider the difference in surface area occupied by the northern and southern hemiphere’s oceans, and annual variation in cloud cover, plankton density, annual current variation and a host of other things the assumption of an Earth analogous to a lump of coal with puddles on won’t reveal.
Assuming for the sake of the argument that the 20th century increase of TSI was 1 W/m2 [I think less, but let’s use 1 just for the argument], then the total rise of [the steric] sea level during the 20th century would be just that, 0.08 mm.
If the average annual rise is 2.45mm, the annual variation due to earth’s orbital distance from the sun might raise the sea level 7mm, but it only falls back by 4.55mm on average during the period under study (allowing for the sequestration). So the steric component being around 50% of that difference, according to the IPCC, means that the oceans retained a big chunk of energy.
The meltoff from Greenland (about 170Km^3/yr now, 250 then) which is the biggest single non thermic component of sea level rise certainly isn’t going to cover the shortfall if this isn’t the case.
Therefore, the annual change in the steric component of sea level rise during the C20th warnming comprises of around 1.2mm/yr more than the 7mm annual variation due to orbital influence. The logical error arises in assuming that the sea level went up 7mm and back down 7mm. It didn’t.
So nice try Leif, but no cigar. 😉
tallbloke (00:03:13) :
Therefore, the annual change in the steric component of sea level rise during the C20th warnming comprises of around 1.2mm/yr more than the 7mm annual variation due to orbital influence. The logical error arises in assuming that the sea level went up 7mm and back down 7mm. It didn’t.
Hey, I’m trying to learn. The 7 mm comes from Figure 1 of:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#steric
I would think that if the 90 W/m2 annual variation is the cause of the 7 mm, then it would take an increase of 90/7*1.2 = 15 W/m2 per year of TSI to explain the 1.2 mm/yr if that rise is due to TSI. And 15 W/m2 per year seems a bit excessive.
Stephen wilde
>The mechanism by which the bulk ocean temperature is, or rather was, set needs some thought given that there seems to be substantial doubt as to how the current amount of energy in the ocean deeps got there in the first place given that downward mixing encounters significant obstacles. Not least the fact that the direction of energy flow is always ocean to air albeit at varying rates. Indeed the net energy flow is always from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the oceans with the temperature of the Earth’s crust below the oceans being the only thing to set an irreducible minimum at any given time<
can someone explain this:
in the deep ocean trenches 6km down temps are recorded typically -1 deg c to +1 deg c and in some places just below the freezing point of salt water, even in the tropics.
The flow rates may be slow .1 km /hour to .4 km hour but given the size of the currents ie 200 km wide x 20 km deep the capacity to transfer energy is large, but may have to move several thousand km before it upwells there wont be much heat involved though !.
Go down any deep mine temperature rises as you go down, water in the abandoned mine shafts take the temp. of the surounding rock.
The smokers and mid ocean ridges pump out pyroclastic flows containing a lot of energy.
There are some studies which show considerable convection activity between deep ocean water and the seabeds .
The oceans perhaps actually help cool the earth, and don't warm it at all.
The earths core temperatures may be sustained in part by nuclear processes + stored heat from its original formation which is gradually being lost to space.
And if you take that 1.2mm and subtract the upper range of ground water addition to sea level from the IPCC 3 report of 1mm (which has what I consider an incredibly large and totally unacceptable range of 0.1mm to 1mm) you now are down to 0.2mm of sea level rise. Then if you take an Earth expanding at a rate of 0.6mm per year and sea levels as measured by satellite you then come up with a -0.1mm of sea level rise. Add in the upper range of sea water rise from deforestation of 0.14mm and run off from urbanisation of 0.4mm and you now have -0.64mm of sea level rise. The oceans are now cooling at a rate where we should be skating on the Atlantic before long.
Lindsay H (04:30:58)
“The oceans perhaps actually help cool the earth, and don’t warm it at all.”
The oceans are clearly involved in a cooling process because energy from the core has to pass through the oceans on it’s way to space.
However I would think that the oceans render that rate of energy loss slower than if there were no water with just air above a solid surface.
Thus for energy released from the crust below the oceans the liquid water carries out the same function as does the water vapour (and other GHGs) in the air i. e. it slows the rate of energy loss to space.
The manner in which the oceans warm the Earth is the manner in which they receive solar shortwave from the sun, process and redistribute it over time and then release it at variable rates to the air as longwave radiation.
One does have to add in the energy from the core as part of the overall process but on less than geological time scales the energy from the core seems to have little effect.
The scale of the oceanic processing of solar shortwave is so large that it’s effect in controlling the global temperature totally swamps any contribution from the air.
Generally the temperature of the oceans is set by the length of time it takes for the solar shortwave to be converted to radiated longwave and released through the air to space. It is becoming clear that the length of that delay is sufficiently variable to account for all observed multidecadal climate shifts observed so far subject to slow century scale solar variation.
Tyndall et al were perfectly correct as regards the energy budget of the air but it is wholly wrong to apply their findings about the behaviour of the air to the entire climate system which is almost totally at the mercy of internal oceanic behaviour.
Furthermore the responses in the air to changes in the energy budget of the air alone are rapid and infinitely variable.
The hydrological cycles adjusts the rate of energy loss from the surface to space as necessary to leave the oceanic surface temperature in absolute control of air temperatures.
The oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere, but in their present state (cold, deep water comprising most of the volume) they don’t hold much heat, say, below 300 meters. And that results in the “time constant” for ocean heat capacity being fairly short. El Ninos & Pinutuba demonstrate time constants of around 6-8 months — not very long.
Because of water density changes, colder water sinks, and the shallow warmest water lies on the top. If the deep ocean were, say, above the average global temp of ~50F, then that would represent some additional heat storage. Data suggest that during earlier warm global periods (before 3 million yrs ago), the deep water was actually much warmer than now (60F or more instead of 40F). Only during the ice-ages has the cold meltwater from ice accumulated to practically fill the ocean, except for the top. So the present-day cold deepwater represents storage of the “cold” during the recent ice-ages. Because upwelling of deep water occurs in localized regions like the west coast of the Americas, any difference of the temp of the deep water affects those regions. In fact, we see the temp effects of changing upwelling, mostly in the Pacific during ENSO events.
Bottom line is, the present state of the oceans, w/cold deepwater, apparently provide little more than 6-8 months of heat-storage. A warm-world deepwater that was not so cold would provide a little more time (couple yrs), but the notion that heat is hiding “in the pipeline” for decades is patently false.
beng (08:42:48) :
The oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere, but in their present state (cold, deep water comprising most of the volume) they don’t hold much heat, say, below 300 meters.
Regardless of the discussion about whether it is heat or energy, let us call it H. Then you can calculate H for a temperature of 274K and for 290K and you’ll find that H[274] = 274/290 * H[290] or only 5% smaller, so water at 274K [deep ocean] holds 95% of the energy [heat] of water at 290K [surface], so there is about ten times as much heat below 300 meters than above.
Leif Svalgaard (09:36:11) :
beng (08:42:48) :
The oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere, but in their present state (cold, deep water comprising most of the volume) they don’t hold much heat, say, below 300 meters.
What is of interest for us living in the air just above the surface, is not really how much heat [H] the oceans hold, but how much of that comes from ocean water warmer than the air temperature or some other reference temperature. In studies of hurricanes and tropical storms, a reference temperature of 26C = 299K is often used, so that dH = H-Ho [where Ho is that for 26C] can be positive or negative. One can also use a point in time [say 1970] as a reference to get dH = H(t) – H(1970).
Good analyse Beng; some posts above I asked If the bottom waters at end of Cretaceous were really at 15°C; do you have any idea?
Oh, Smokey and others:
“Corrigendum
Nature 460, 766 (6 August 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08286
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig, David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso & Drew T. Shindell
Nature 457, 459–462 (2009)
In this Letter, we reported trends on reconstructed temperature histories for different areas of the Antarctic continent. The confidence levels on the trends, as given in the text, did not take into account the reduced degrees of freedom in the time series due to autocorrelation. We report in Table 1 the corrected values, based on a two-tailed t-test, with the number of degrees of freedom adjusted for autocorrelation, using Neffective = N(1 – r)/(1 + r), in which N is the sample size and r is the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient of the residuals of the detrended time series. The median of r is 0.27, resulting in a reduction in the degrees of freedom from N = 600 to Neffective = 345 for the monthly time series.
Table 1: Corrected confidence levels on mean decadal temperature trendsFull table
We also include results of a further calculation that takes into account both the variance and the uncertainty in the reconstructed temperatures. We performed Monte-Carlo simulations of the reconstructed temperatures using a Gaussian distribution with variance equal to the unresolved variance from the split calibration/verification tests described in the paper. Confidence bounds were obtained by detrending each simulation and obtaining the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient and variance of the residuals; a random realization of Gaussian noise having the same lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient and variance was then added to the trend, and a new trend was calculated. The 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the 10,000 simulated trends give the 95% confidence bounds. For the case of zero unresolved variance, this calculation converges on the same value as the two-tailed t-test, above. The 95% confidence minimum trend value is given by the 5th percentile values of the simulated trends, last row of Table 1.
The corrected confidence levels do not change the assessed significance of trends, nor any of the primary conclusions of the paper. We also note that there is a typographical error in Supplementary Table 1: the correct location of Automatic Weather Station ‘Harry’ is 83.0° S, 238.6° E. The position of this station on the maps in the paper is correct.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/nature08286.html
Jacob Mack:
Man up and discuss the Steig Corrigendum on this thread, where their claim of “do not change the assessed significance of trends” is demonstrated to be, at the very least, somewhat inaccurate.
There is a major difference between an Addendum, which is published to correct an inadvertent error, and a Corrigenda, which indicates deliberate error. For instance, the correction of Mann’s hockey stick was a Corrigenda according to Nature, which stated:
In other words, Mann’s hockey stick was deliberately in error. And now we have the Steig Corrigenda.
tallbloke (00:03:13)
“To properly evaluate your argument, we need to consider the difference in surface area occupied by the northern and southern hemiphere’s oceans, and annual variation in cloud cover, plankton density, annual current variation”
The export carbon pump energy flux (photosynthetic energy fixation rate) is around 45 mW/m2 and perturbation of the flux due to changes in UVR(non solar) reaching the euphotic zone can result in photosynthetic inhibition of >20% would this not be climatologically significant
“”” Mark T (15:44:39) :
Sorry, George, but you are incorrect. This is basic grammar dude!
“A process” is using the word a noun, and more specifically, the phrase “a process” is an object, or a noun substitute, e.g., “The process of using a check requires that you sign your name.” “To process” would be usage as a verb, e.g., “I told you to process those checks!”
And, um, for the record, the word verb is a noun, too. Nouns often are often used to describe actions, but they are still nouns.
If you don’t believe me, look it up in the dictionary.
Mark “””
I must be getting senile; I’d swear on a stack of bibles that I intended to say that “verb” is a noun; and it was also my intent to state that “process” was a noun in that same sense as “verb” is; But a process (noun) is something that happens or is caused to happen (verb). A written description of a “process” is an object and therefore anoun; but the porcess itslef is an action and therefore a verb.
Then of course there is that classic “sentence”; “Where verb ?”
Don’t try to out grammar me; I was head of my graduating class in English, and I still have the prize I received to prove it.
Just to be fair, I’ll present the matter to Dr Richard Lederer; the world’s foremost authority on the English Language; and author of about 700 books on the subject.
If he says that a process is a noun and not a verb, I’ll take his word (noun) for it.
George
But Mark; please check what I wrote, and see if I did slip up and forget to mention that “verb” is a noun.
Ok, here’s one for you guys.
The bottom of the ocean is about 3 C but 5 miles below is magma and 3-4 miles above is atmosphere.
So what keeps it cold? Heat should seep in from above and below and warm it up?
Smokey,
your source is Heartland which is just a propaganda mill.
Sandy (16:12:44) :
The bottom of the ocean is about 3 C but 5 miles below is magma and 3-4 miles above is atmosphere.
So what keeps it cold? Heat should seep in from above and below and warm it up?
It does: 0.1 W/m2 from below and some 240 W/m2 from above. But it also radiates its heat away to the atmosphere and empty space. The input and output are roughly in balance.
>> Sandy (16:12:44) :
Ok, here’s one for you guys.
The bottom of the ocean is about 3 C but 5 miles below is magma and 3-4 miles above is atmosphere.
So what keeps it cold? Heat should seep in from above and below and warm it up? <<
Maximum density for water occurs at about 4C. All other temperatures of water are less dense and are displaced by the 4C water.
Jim
Sandy (16:12:44) :
Ok, here’s one for you guys.
The bottom of the ocean is about 3 C but 5 miles below is magma and 3-4 miles above is atmosphere.
So what keeps it cold? Heat should seep in from above and below and warm it up?
The original cold is the empty space the earth travels in. Practically 0 K. If there were no sun and no internal energy the whole ocean, as long as water could be held by the earth’s gravity, would be mostly ice, an ice ball.
Heat from below and heat from above manage to bring ice to melting, and in between cool enough still to allow the development of life as we know it. The anthropic principle.
To add to the above, the cold deep water is formed when seawater freezes in the arctic, antarctic and other places. Water ice is pure frozen water, so all of the salt goes to produce concentrated brine at low temperatures, which is denser than bulk seawater at comparable temperatures. This brine travels downhill to the deepest reservoir it can find and pushes warmer brine upward. So the brine stays cold because new cold brine is added to the reservoir continually.
Author: Sandy
Comment:
Ok, here’s one for you guys.
The bottom of the ocean is about 3 C but 5 miles below is magma and 3-4 miles above is atmosphere.
So what keeps it cold? Heat should seep in from above and below and warm it up?
Actually temps in some deep ocean trenches 6km down is closer to -2.2 deg c.
Conventional theory is that radiation from the polar regions cool seawater to its max density and it sinks and flows to the tropics.
Vol of Oceans is aprox 1.3 billion cu km, 90% of which is below the thermocline with temps below 4deg.
to raise the temp of the total ocean mass by .1deg in a year will take (I think!) 1.4×10^21 kw/watts.
Leif.::1 w/sqm seems an interesting figure, = 100,000 watt/sq km x 510,072,000 sq km of planet surface area = 5.1 x10^13 watts although wiki recons 4.2 x 10^13.
radiation from the sun @ nett 240 w/sqm = 1.22 x 10^17 watts so for the planet to remain in balance that amount has to be radiated into space.
if there is an imbalance with energy being retained to raise the planets temp an imbalance of say 3 w/sq m will require 1.53 x 10^14 watts
Jim Masterson (21:02:30) :
Seawater is saline, so the effect of temperature is slightly different. The density keeps right on increasing as you approach the (lowered) freezing point.
Leif,
Is anyone measuring variations in the average wavelengths of:
1) Energy reaching the Earth from the sun
2) Energy entering the oceans
3) Energy released from oceans to air
4) Energy lost from air to space.
It is specifically variations in average wavelength that I am interested in, not overall quantities, for reasons that I will make clear when I have your response.
Jacob Mack (16:42:07) :
You’re kidding, right? That’s your answer?? No wonder you won’t ‘man up and discuss the Steig Corrigendum’, as suggested above.
If you haven’t noticed, realclimate is just a propaganda mill, only it’s your propaganda mill. Each side represents a point of view. But realclimate goes far beyond being simply a point of view, and into official, government sponsored censorship; from the time stamps on the comments, we know that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others at RC use a significant part of their taxpayer funded workday to run their blog. It is government censorship when they consistently delete comments that don’t fit their agenda. And taking George Soros financial support to push their globaloney agenda cheats the taxpayers, who expect unbiased research rather than propaganda.
You handwaved away information that makes you uneasy. That is the typical closed-mindedness that defines the alarmist contingent: when you don’t have the facts, an ad hom response is all you’ve got. It reminds me of the hate-filled Left attacking George Bush for being a warmonger — and then turning a blind eye to 0bama’s recent doubling of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Pure hypocrisy.
If you had made a case regarding the facts of the article, you would have earned some respect. Instead, you responded with another impotent ad hominem attack. That was your answer to the facts presented??
Read your response again; that attitude is why the alarmist crowd is losing this debate. The facts don’t support you, as planet Earth has been showing everyone for most of the past decade. Admitting that the planet is right, and the alarmists are wrong, would earn you some respect. But I seriously doubt that you’re capable of being impartial. Prove me wrong. If you can.
“Seawater is saline, so the effect of temperature is slightly different. The density keeps right on increasing as you approach the (lowered) freezing point.”
No it doesn’t. If it did sheer pressure would cause sea-water to solidify at depth and an ice with a higher density than water would stay on the bottom.
Stephen Wilde (00:01:00) :
Is anyone measuring variations in the average wavelengths of:
I’m not sure what you exactly mean by ‘average’. One can construct a situation where the average wavelength is meaningless. Here is one: in a box I have two bodies with very different temperatures [I contrive to keep the temperatures different, by embedding a heater in one and a cooling agent is the other – e.g. running cold water through from an outside pipe]. The resulting radiation coming out through a small hole in the wall of the box will then have two humps at different wavelengths. By manipulating the temperatures I can make these humps far apart. The average wavelength will fall between the humps where little radiation actually is emitted, and will be meaningless IMO.
Assuming there is meaning to your question, I may guess at your intent. There is a wavelength where the radiation is maximum [Wien’s law] which is a measure of the temperature, so perhaps you are after the temperature. But, again, I’m not what you mean, so explain your intent first.
Lindsay H. (21:57:49) :
Leif. 0.1 w/sqm seems an interesting figure, = 100,000 watt/sq km x 510,072,000 sq km of planet surface area = 5.1 x10^13 watts although wiki recons 4.2 x 10^13.
My number [as directly related to the question] was the heat flow under the oceans only, which is higher than under the land. Hence the somewhat higher figure.
The point was that the internal heat flow is 2,400 times smaller than the external one, so doesn’t count for much. The combined heat-flux is balanced [over time] by the radiation of the Earth into space. Equating the two yields the effective temperature of the Earth.
Sandy,
ice is less dense than water.
~snip~ Off topic.
Sandy (05:32:53) :
“Seawater is saline, so the effect of temperature is slightly different. The density keeps right on increasing as you approach the (lowered) freezing point.”
No it doesn’t. If it did sheer pressure would cause sea-water to solidify at depth and an ice with a higher density than water would stay on the bottom.
No you were wrong when you said this a couple of days ago and you’re wrong now. I refer you to the explanation I gave then.
No, look at the phase diagram of water, water has an anomalous property that its solidus slopes towards lower temperature at higher pressure, that is why water doesn’t freeze at the bottom of the ocean it has nothing to do with a maximum density. The first poster is correct sea water has a maximum density at its freezing point.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/ice/h2ophase.gif
********
Leif Svalgaard (09:36:11):
Regardless of the discussion about whether it is heat or energy, let us call it H. Then you can calculate H for a temperature of 274K and for 290K and you’ll find that H[274] = 274/290 * H[290] or only 5% smaller, so water at 274K [deep ocean] holds 95% of the energy [heat] of water at 290K [surface], so there is about ten times as much heat below 300 meters than above.
What is of interest for us living in the air just above the surface, is not really how much heat [H] the oceans hold, but how much of that comes from ocean water warmer than the air temperature or some other reference temperature. In studies of hurricanes and tropical storms, a reference temperature of 26C = 299K is often used, so that dH = H-Ho [where Ho is that for 26C] can be positive or negative. One can also use a point in time [say 1970] as a reference to get dH = H(t) – H(1970).
*********
Leif, I agree w/your statements. On an absolute scale, the deep water obviously holds more total heat (joules) than the shallow warm water because it’s much more massive. But as you say & I thought had pointed out was that deep water temps relative to land/ocean surface temps is the point. Since they are colder on average compared to land/ocean surface temps, the deepwater actually stores cold (lack of heat), not warmth. Of course, this “cold” is shielded/insulated from the air by the warm surface waters, and can only cool the weather where upwelling forces it to the surface.
Do you disagree w/my point that the present, stratified state of the world’s oceans (alot of cold bottomwater) cannot have “heat in the pipeline” that would make a significant difference to climate decades later?
frederic (10:46:33):
I’ve read this in several papers, but a quick google search didn’t find them. I’ll search a bit more.
Leif,
The wavelength where temperature is maximum would do just fine. Shorter wavelengths carry more energy than longer wavelengths so it is the variability of the total energy content that I am after.
Is it seen to vary in each of the situations specified and if so is anyone measuring those variations ?
For example the sun provides energy to us at a whole spectrum of wavelengths so what I want to know is how much variability there is in the distribution of wavelengths within the total energy supplied to us.
Then the same for energy entering the oceans, passing from the oceans to the air and passing from the air to space
Leif,
I am puzzled by your implied suggestion that a body at a specific temperature necessarily radiates at a single specific wavelength.
The sun would seem to be an exception in that we get radiation from a very wide spectrum from a single body at a specific temperature.
beng (10:01:01) :
Do you disagree w/my point that the present, stratified state of the world’s oceans (alot of cold bottomwater) cannot have “heat in the pipeline” that would make a significant difference to climate decades later?
I think the whole point of the article in the topic was “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.”, so we agree.
Stephen Wilde (10:38:14) :
the variability of the total energy content that I am after.
That is given by TSI.
For example the sun provides energy to us at a whole spectrum of wavelengths so what I want to know is how much variability there is in the distribution of wavelengths within the total energy supplied to us.
This is given by something called the Spectral Irradiance, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/ssi_data.htm
Then the same for energy entering the oceans, passing from the oceans to the air and passing from the air to space
I think the Outgoing Radiation is also measured at several wavelengths, but don’t have any handy links. Should be easy to find on the net.
Leif,
Can you describe something for me ?
You are expert in solar issues and it would take me much time to check out for myself matters which you could address immediately.
The thing I am curious about is the relationship between TSI and the Spectral Irradiance.
It seems to me that if one were to get more of one wavelength from the sun and less of another then the TSI could stay the same notwithstanding that variation.
However different wavelengths are processed differently by the Earth’s oceans and air so one could presumably get a different climate response from that change in the Spectral Irradiance even though TSI remains pretty much the same.
So how much change do we see in the Spectral Irradiance, how often and in which wavelengths ?
Stephen Wilde (10:43:00) :
I am puzzled by your implied suggestion that a body at a specific temperature necessarily radiates at a single specific wavelength.
No, the spectrum peaks at a wavelength given by the temperature [for black body radiation – Wien’s law]
Stephen Wilde (11:20:21) :
However different wavelengths are processed differently by the Earth’s oceans and air so one could presumably get a different climate response from that change in the Spectral Irradiance even though TSI remains pretty much the same.
But the wavelengths outside of the visual contribute small percentage of the total.
So how much change do we see in the Spectral Irradiance, how often and in which wavelengths ?
The link I gave you has a lot about that. One thing that often surprises people is that some of those variations go in the opposite direction of what they think. For example the near ultraviolet from 242-310 nm varies opposite to the solar cycle, more UV at minimum, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
So there is no simple answer to your question, it all depends on what wave length interval and time scale, etc. I can’t give any ‘sweeping’ answer [except my boilerplate one: the variations don’t matter as they are so small 🙂 ]. We can research this piece by piece, but there must be a clear goal or intent, rather than a fishing expedition. And lots of people have already looked at that.
Thanks Leif. it is getting clearer so I’ll go to the point.
Does Solar Spectral Irradiance shift over time between the shortwave and longwave ends of the spectrum and if so by how much and is there any link to levels of solar activity ?
If there is more UV at minimum would there be more shortwave at maximum ?
The reason I ask is that it is only solar shortwave radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the oceans so an increase in shortwave will add more energy to the oceans and a decrease in shortwave will add less energy to the oceans even if there is little or no change in TSI.
The effect of only a tiny shift towards the shortwave end of the spectrum could make a profound difference to the amount of energy absorbed by the oceans especially if continued for decades or centuries.
Essentially, could shifts in Solar Spectral Irradiance be the (or a) climate smoking gun ?
>> oms (22:31:07) :
Seawater is saline, so the effect of temperature is slightly different. The density keeps right on increasing as you approach the (lowered) freezing point. <<
If the bottom of the ocean had a temperature of 3C, then I would guess that the maximum density of sea water would be at 3C. It’s interesting what Encyclopedia Britannica says–not that anyone considers them to have any expertise (I think there was paper published in Nature or Science that claims Encyclopedia Britannica was no more accurate that Wikipedia).
Jim
And a tiny shift of the WHOLE spectrum towards the shortwave or longwave ends of the spectrum would presumably affect the energy content of ALL the radiation reaching the Earth (even if TSI remained the same) so the effect on the oceans would be much greater than would be expected from a change in a single wavelength or a limited group of wavelengths.
EVERY wavelength more energetic than a particular level would bear an increased capacity to penetrate the ocean surface.
Jim Masterson (12:24:42) :
Jim, the table you linked looks correct. The densest seawater (especially near the bottom) is both salty AND cold, and water near the saltier end of the table is densest near 0 C.
Stephen Wilde (12:26:55) :
This seems true, but then you’d also expect to see a corresponding change in TSI.
Sort of, but it is not quite true that the shortest wavelengths penetrate the sea surface most effectively.
Wozniak and Dera, Light absorption in sea water:
Spectra of light absorption in the visible range measured in different sea waters
oms (13:09:40)
There would not be a corresponding rise in TSI if the increase in energy value of one wavelength was offset by a decrease in energy value of another. For example a large reduction in longwave could be offset by a small increase in shortwave but more energy would enter the oceans for the same value of TSI.
I’m waiting for Leif to tell me whether that is possible.
It does not matter whether the shortest wavelengths penetrate the sea surface most effectively. What matters is the degree of variability in the supply of those wavelengths which do penetrate the sea surface most effectively.
I hope Leif can shed light on that too.
Stephen Wilde (12:26:55) :
There would not be a corresponding rise in TSI if the increase in energy value of one wavelength was offset by a decrease in energy value of another.
I fail to see the relevance of all this. The variation of the energetic UV is less than that of TSI, measured in W/m2, and almost all that UV is absorbed high in the atmosphere anyway, so the variation of the amount that reaches the ocean is minute compared to that of TSI.
Stephen Wilde (12:26:55) :
There would not be a corresponding rise in TSI if the increase in energy value of one wavelength was offset by a decrease in energy value of another.
Too many questions all at once. Let us take one at a time and be very specific: which wavelength interval, for example, and received where. [only one interval and one location to begin with].
NOAA Paleoclimatology What’s New.mht:
“Loulergue et al. Nature
Vol. 453, No. 7193, pp. 383-386, 15 May 2008. doi: 10.1038/nature06950
Atmospheric methane is an important greenhouse gas and a sensitive indicator of climate change and millennial-scale temperature variability. Its concentrations over the past 650,000 years have varied between ~350 and ~800 parts per 109 by volume (p.p.b.v.) during glacial and interglacial periods, respectively. In comparison, present-day methane levels of ~1,770 p.p.b.v. have been reported. Insights into the external forcing factors and internal feedbacks controlling atmospheric methane are essential for predicting the methane budget in a warmer world. Here we present a detailed atmospheric methane record from the EPICA Dome C ice core that extends the history of this greenhouse gas to 800,000 yr before present. The average time resolution of the new data is ~380 yr and permits the identification of orbital and millennial-scale features. Spectral analyses indicate that the long-term variability in atmospheric methane levels is dominated by ~100,000 yr glacial-interglacial cycles up to ~400,000 yr ago with an increasing contribution of the precessional component during the four more recent climatic cycles. We suggest that changes in the strength of tropical methane sources and sinks (wetlands, atmospheric oxidation), possibly influenced by changes in monsoon systems and the position of the intertropical convergence zone, controlled the atmospheric methane budget, with an additional source input during major terminations as the retreat of the northern ice sheet allowed higher methane emissions from extending periglacial wetlands. Millennial-scale changes in methane levels identified in our record as being associated with Antarctic isotope maxima events are indicative of ubiquitous millennial-scale temperature variability during the past eight glacial cycles.”
”
Ahn and Brook Science
Vol. 322, No. 5898, pp. 83-85, 3 October 2008, doi:10.1126/science.1160832.
Reconstructions of ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) variations help us better understand how the global carbon cycle and climate are linked. We compared CO2 variations on millennial time scales between 20,000 and 90,000 years ago with an Antarctic temperature proxy and records of abrupt climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature were positively correlated over millennial-scale climate cycles, implying a strong connection to Southern Ocean processes. Evidence from marine sediment proxies indicates that CO2 concentration rose most rapidly when North Atlantic Deep Water shoaled and stratification in the Southern Ocean was reduced. These increases in CO2 concentration occurred during stadial (cold) periods in the Northern Hemisphere, several thousand years before abrupt warming events in Greenland.”
Leif Svalgaard (21:37:38) :
Stephen Wilde (12:26:55) :
“There would not be a corresponding rise in TSI if the increase in energy value of one wavelength was offset by a decrease in energy value of another.”
Too many questions all at once. Let us take one at a time and be very specific: which wavelength interval, for example, and received where. [only one interval and one location to begin with].
Over in the Livingston thread I posted this useful link:
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/floyd_svecse.pdf
An extract from Leif’s link:
“Solar Ultraviolet (UV & EUV) Irradiation
Interesting Questions for Further Research :
1) What are the detailed mechanisms of solar UV irradiance
variation?
2) What is the connection between magnetic activity and UV
irradiance variations?
3) What is the contribution of UV variation to that of the TSI?
4) How much does the solar UV vary over time periods longer
than the solar activity cycle?
5) What was the solar UV irradiance during the Maunder
Minimum?
6) How well does the Mg II index describe relative irradiance
variations from the EUV to the visible?”
My comments:
Now the interesting thing is that those issues need further research i.e. we do not know the answers.
I consider that without the answers we cannot assess how much variability there is in the amount of energy from shortwave radiation from the sun and which can penetrate the ocean surface deeply enough to overcome the evaporation barrier and thereby add to the total oceanic energy store.
Note that such variations can occur without a significant change in TSI because we are talking about variation of the distribution of specific wavelengths within the spectrum and not the total power or energy value of all the energy delivered.
If over time the Earths receives a different proportion of the energy from the sun in the form of wavelengths that are more or less efficient at penetrating the ocean surface then the oceanic energy store will change up or down without a corresponding change in TSI.
Thus the climate smoking gun is not TSI after all but rather changes in the Solar Irradiance Spectrum (SIS) and according to Leif’s link the scale and effect of changes in the SIS are currently unknown with further research needed.
There is the most likely explanation for the observed fact that climate changes are apparently too large to be explained by TSI changes. Just switch the wavelengths received around a bit and the necessary changes in solar energy flow into the oceans can be explained without a proportionate change in TSI. Voila.
I feel a new article coming on (The Climate Smoking Gun – The Solar Irradiance Spectrum).
Stephen Wilde (23:34:28) :
Now the interesting thing is that those issues need further research i.e. we do not know the answers.
I think that is a misrepresentation. What is meant was that we do not know as much as we would like, not that we don’t know anything.
And you logic is faulty, it does not follow that because we don’t know anything that that which we don’t know is the cause of something we do know. This is the classic Al Gore Argument: “If you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
We do know quite a lot as the link explains. And as the article of this thread explains direct measurements “eliminated the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”, so no long-term storage in the Oceans. So we may have a smoking gun, but no dead body 🙂
“Leif Svalgaard (00:00:36) :
Stephen Wilde (23:34:28) :
Now the interesting thing is that those issues need further research i.e. we do not know the answers.
I think that is a misrepresentation. What is meant was that we do not know as much as we would like, not that we don’t know anything.
And you logic is faulty, it does not follow that because we don’t know anything that that which we don’t know is the cause of something we do know. This is the classic Al Gore Argument: “If you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
We do know quite a lot as the link explains. And as the article of this thread explains direct measurements “eliminated the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”, so no long-term storage in the Oceans. So we may have a smoking gun, but no dead body :-)”
Reply:
Not knowing as much as we would like is quite sufficient for current purposes. We do not know how much the energy flows into and out of the oceans change independently of TSI variation. Enough said.
If the smoking gun is variations in the SIS then the dead body is the periodic change in the rate of energy flow from the oceans. One does not need long term storage, merely 30 years as per the observed PDO phase shifts.
It would seem that it takes 30 years or so for the changes forced by variations in the SIS to overcome other oceanic variables and drive an oceanic phase change.
A far simpler and more elegant solution than I ever expected to find.
Longer term changes due to TSI variability over centuries would still be in the background but multidecadal changes would be down to the SIS changing over time and building up an effect within the oceans.
Tallbloke has pointed out that the oceanic phase shifts in the Pacific seem to occur every third solar cycle and usually around solar minimum. That would fit the approximate 30 year cycle and the reason for it occurring at minimum may be linked to your comment that counterintuitively UV (shortwave) is greater at minimum and so would more often cause (or fail to prevent) a phase shift at solar minimum.
Stephen Wilde (00:23:03) :
We do not know how much the energy flows into and out of the oceans change independently of TSI variation. Enough said.
Therefore you can say nothing about this. You can surmise, guess, postulate, posit, assume, presume, etc, but it is all just hand waving and no substance, because you cannot explain an effect if the input is unknown. ‘Nuff said.
Stephen Wilde (00:23:03) :
We do not know how much the energy flows into and out of the oceans change independently of TSI variation.
And what we do know about what causes TSI, it is not the case that a given change in UV will have the opposite change in TSI. TSI has a base cause: the photosphere is hot. On top of that the magnetic field effects add to TSI and to the UV [which is a part of TSI], so both go up and down in concert. Within the UV regime there is some variation: some wave lengths vary opposite to others [because of the many absorption lines present in those regions], but UV as a whole vary with TSI. And in any case these variations are very small when measured in W/m2.
So to have a smoking gun you must be specific: which wave length region? what does it do to the oceans? etc. The old saw ‘isn’t it conceivable that…’ won’t cut it in my book.
Stephen and Leif, as I just wrote on the P&L thread, I continue to be intrigued by the idea that the variation in the shape of the peaks of the cosmic rays each solar cycle alternates and that two of each type of cosmic ray peak and one of the other type are in each of the alternating warming and cooling phases of the PDO. It is so, that the difference of distribution of the cosmic rays around the poles of the sun is small, but if the phenomenon is linked to the behaviour of the PDO then a mechanism may be suggested.
========================================
Stephen Wilde (00:23:03) :
This has been, and continues to be, a subject of rather intensive observational programs.
How much do you expect us to know about it?
steve (06:24:12) :
And if you take that 1.2mm and subtract the upper range of ground water addition to sea level
Why would I want to do that? There is a cycle. Water evaporates from the oceans. It rains on the land and oceans. It fills the water table under the land and runs back to the oceans. If you extract it from the water table and then let the waste flow to the sea overland you are short circuiting the process, but not fundamentally changing it.
Expanding Earth: I think the sea level datum is relative to the land surface, not the earth’s centre. So this is probably already accounted for in the satellite altimetry, but needs checking out.
The bottom line is, sea surface temperatures have risen. As far as we can make out from the XBT units, ocean heat content has risen. Water expands when you warm it.
The temperature range across the top 700m of the ocean is consistent with a fairly linear drop from surface to thermocline. The 0.3C rise in SST 1993-2003 is consistent with a 0.15C rise in the average temperature of the top 700m.
This is consistent with a rise in OHC of around 14×10^22J, which is consistent with a sea level rise of around 16mm. Which is consistent of IPCC estimates of the total sea level rise being roughly half due to thermal expansion, and the rest due to meltoff and the other factors. It’s all debatable, but the estimates seem to fit the theory reasonably well, notwithstanding the puzzle of how the heat is mixed down.
maksimovich (14:02:45) :
The export carbon pump energy flux (photosynthetic energy fixation rate) is around 45 mW/m2 and perturbation of the flux due to changes in UVR(non solar) reaching the euphotic zone can result in photosynthetic inhibition of >20% would this not be climatologically significant
Thanks for that.
So much to learn, so little time…
Leif Svalgaard (04:09:04) :
tallbloke (00:03:13) :
Therefore, the annual change in the steric component of sea level rise during the C20th warnming comprises of around 1.2mm/yr more than the 7mm annual variation due to orbital influence. The logical error arises in assuming that the sea level went up 7mm and back down 7mm. It didn’t.
Hey, I’m trying to learn. The 7 mm comes from Figure 1 of:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#steric
I would think that if the 90 W/m2 annual variation is the cause of the 7 mm, then it would take an increase of 90/7*1.2 = 15 W/m2 per year of TSI to explain the 1.2 mm/yr if that rise is due to TSI. And 15 W/m2 per year seems a bit excessive.
Interesting graph, thanks. I think the figures you’ve shown probably show two main issues.
1) The lack of a clear numerical relationship between seasonal TSI, annual steric change and longer term sea level change demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between biological process, such as Maksamovitch points up, cloud feedback processes, and the annual flux of 90W of TSI. Given that Earth seems quite good at having negative feedbacks which even things out on the geological timescale, it seems safe to assume they work at various other timescales right down to annual and diurnal too. Willis Eschenbach demonstrated that nicely with his hypothesis on here a month or so back.
2) Changes in TSI on multidecadal timescales may be bigger than your hypothesis using magnetism shows. Could this be because the strength of the Earth’s field has changed quite significantly, so the degree to which it interacts with the solar activity varies too ? What if the strength of Earth’s field depended on things other than solar irradiance and the strength of the solar wind? Like the strength and depth of sub surface currents bearing magnetic and radioactive material. Swings in LOD were bigger in the C19th than the C20th. Maybe that has a bearing on the issue.
Leif and oms,
Well it’s not difficult to ascertain which wavelengths are most effective at penetrating ocean surfaces.
It should not be too difficult to quantify them and assess how much they vary and whether they can vary independently of TSI. Though you will need to measure the change in the penetrative effectiveness across the entire spectrum when the SIS changes not just individual wavelengths.
It may well be the subject of ‘rather intensive observational programs’.
The point I am making is that it is a pretty obvious potential mechanism to bridge the gap between the size of observed climate changes and the small size of variations in TSI.
Against that we are told by the IPCC and indeed by Leif that there is no plausible mechanism for observed global temperature changes over recent years (apart from extra human CO2 emissions according to the IPCC but Leif does not go that far).
And don’t go telling me it cannot be relevant when you haven’t yet quantified it yourselves.
Denying the significance of a mechanism you have not yet measured is just the same as asserting the significance of a mechanism that has not yet been measured so Leif’s denials are inappropriate in the face of the scientific imperative to formulate new ideas in the face of ignorance and to then test them.
Leif has no evidence to rebut my suggestion yet feels confident in dismissing the matter even though he lacks the data to make such a judgement.
If my suggestion clearly had no merit then he would have easily disposed of it earlier on in this thread.
Leif concedes this point:
” Within the UV regime there is some variation: some wave lengths vary opposite to others.”
and this:
“but UV as a whole vary with TSI.”
Which is exactly what I said. Except that I extended my point to the entire solar spectrum.
He then dismisses the issue on the grounds that such changes are too small but without any data presented here to support that.
However,If there is a shift of the WHOLE spectrum towards the shortwave then the scale of the penetrative effect of radiation into the oceans will be large for even a small shift because the power of every wavelength will be affected. There might then be a small shift in TSI as well but the energy budget outcome would be disproportionate to the scale of the shift which is exactly what we observe.
Up above I quoted this from a link kindly supplied by Leif:
An extract from Leif’s link:
“Solar Ultraviolet (UV & EUV) Irradiation
Interesting Questions for Further Research :
1) What are the detailed mechanisms of solar UV irradiance
variation?
2) What is the connection between magnetic activity and UV
irradiance variations?
3) What is the contribution of UV variation to that of the TSI?
4) How much does the solar UV vary over time periods longer
than the solar activity cycle?
5) What was the solar UV irradiance during the Maunder
Minimum?
6) How well does the Mg II index describe relative irradiance
variations from the EUV to the visible?”
The professionals are clearly aware of the potential implications of variations in shortwave solar input to the system and acknowledge the need to quantify it.
These issues are critical to explaing the size of solar variation on climate changes and until we have answers to those questions there can be no means of assessing the scale of the solar contribution. In particular it would be disingenuous to ignore that gap in our knowledge and assert simply that the observed variations in TSI are too small for solar effects to be significant.
It is not TSI that matters. What matters is changes in SIS in so far as those changes vary the energy input to the oceans by altering the wavelengths comprising the solar signal at any particular moment.
I don’t have to prove anything here. I need only point out that there is a clear,relevant and substantial hole in our knowledge yet that is not comimg across from Leif, the IPCC, the media or our politicians. Indeed all of them simply say the sun cannot be a primary driver yet they have no idea how energy from solar shortwave input to the oceans varies over time.
Stephen Wilde (00:23:03) :
It would seem that it takes 30 years or so for the changes forced by variations in the SIS to overcome other oceanic variables and drive an oceanic phase change.
A far simpler and more elegant solution than I ever expected to find.
I think you are onto something important Stephen. I seem to recall a graph on climate audit last year which showed solar UV had increased a lot in the C20th. No doubt Leif will have found a reason to iron out the wrinkles though.
One thing worth considering is that ozone absorbs most of the UV below 290nm, but then ozone seems to have been declining over the poles for the last 30 years. Maybe this might explain some of the discrepancy between Leif’s solar findings and effective UV on Earth’s surface. It’s back to that old irradiance/insolation confusion.
Ozone depletion is blamed on aerosol can propellants, hadron fire extinguishers and refridgerants. However, given the comments about all the munitions of WWII making almost no difference to the ocean heat mixing, I find this unlikely. There is another large scale natural process at work we need to know more about.
beng (10:01:01)
Thanks for answer
Do you think that cooling of oceanic bottom waters by sinking of polar cold waters is actually more efficient that the heating of those waters by the geothermal gradient ? Or do you think that such kind of question is off subject when talking about the évolution of climate during past centuries ?
I once calculated that elevating the temperature of all oceanic waters of 1°C needs as much heat than melting the ice caps of the Wurm what took less than 5000 years
All this, of course, is far away from petroleum industry
tallbloke (04:01:18) :
tallbloke (04:22:26) :
“I would think that if the 90 W/m2 annual variation is the cause of the 7 mm, then it would take an increase of 90/7*1.2 = 15 W/m2 per year of TSI to explain the 1.2 mm/yr if that rise is due to TSI. And 15 W/m2 per year seems a bit excessive.”
1) The lack of a clear numerical relationship between seasonal TSI, annual steric change
There is a clear numerical relationship as the Figure shows and as I elaborate on. That is doesn’t show up in the long-term change simply means that it is not there.
2) Changes in TSI on multidecadal timescales may be bigger than your hypothesis using magnetism shows.
This is not a hypothesis, but a result of direct measurement using the Earth itself a the detector.
Could this be because the strength of the Earth’s field has changed quite significantly, so the degree to which it interacts with the solar activity varies too ?
Of course it does and we know how much and can [and do] correct for it [as described e.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf ]
Stephen Wilde (05:05:30) :
If my suggestion clearly had no merit then he would have easily disposed of it earlier on in this thread.
I thought I did 🙂
Stephen Wilde (05:56:12) :
However,If there is a shift of the WHOLE spectrum towards the shortwave
A shift of the WHOLE spectrum is an increase of temperature. Perhaps a repost of something I wrote two years ago on ClimateAudit is in order:
Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23”. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ‘modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is now at activity minimum. [except the change of billions of years]
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203�L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a ‘floor’, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~ Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼ Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor.
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the ‘Magnetic Needle’, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earth’s main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a ‘floor’ in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].
3) What is the contribution of UV variation to that of the TSI?
The link I gave has the answer too: between 17 and 60%. We would like to know it better, but It cannot be larger than that of TSI.
4) How much does the solar UV vary over time periods longer
than the solar activity cycle?
5) What was the solar UV irradiance during the Maunder
Minimum?
I addressed that above, but also in the presentation at AGU in 2007:
http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
It is not TSI that matters. What matters is changes in SSI in so far as those changes vary the energy input to the oceans by altering the wavelengths comprising the solar signal at any particular moment.
The UV variations are smaller than TSI and most [95%] do not reach the oceans but are absorbed high in the atmosphere.
say the sun cannot be a primary driver yet they have no idea how energy from solar shortwave input to the oceans varies over time.
Yes we do, as I have reiterated above. And even if we didn’t, that would still not make it sound science to assume that that which we don’t know drives anything.
Stephen Wilde (05:05:30) :
I linked you very specific graphs of absorptivity measurements taken from seawater. Put this together with the also widely available spectra of solar radiation received at the sea surface.
This should give you some idea of the effectiveness of a frequency SHIFT with regard to ocean penetration.
I think the atmosphere-ocean boundary is actually regulated by little green men. Unless you have measured the influence of little green men, you cannot dismiss this mechanism out of hand. I don’t need to prove anything, I only need to point out that there is a hole in our theory big enough for little green men.
I trust you see how “scientific” this line of reasoning appears.
Tallbloke, the ground water “depletion” problem is just that, a “depletion” problem. This water moved to a new location and was not replaced in full.
Leif, oms,
Lots of information there which I will need to consider.
The atmosphere-ocean boundary is actually regulated by a combination of the evaporative process and the general background flow of energy from sun to ocean to air. No need for little green men.
The fact remains that the ocean surfaces are penetrated by some wavelengths and not others and more by some wavelengths than others and despite Leif’s best efforts and those of other reputable scientists we do not have a firm grip on the level of variability of the different wavelengths arriving at the ocean surface and therefore the level of variability in the rate of penetration of energy into the oceans.
Clouds and other features of the air are clearly implicated on the input and output side with internal oceanic behaviour similarly having an effect of energy retention and energy release.
I am happy to accept that more work is necessary on my part but I think it is also required on the part of ALL those who express firm views on the issue
I think it is all going to boil down to a very fine balance between the portion of solar radiation that fails to penetrate the ocean surface so that it is dealt with by the evaporative process and the portion of solar radiation that does get past the evaporative barrier and then gets subsumed in the background energy flow from sun to sea to air and is removed via that route.
More of the latter and we get general warming. Less of the latter and we get general cooling.
The speed of the hydrological cycle then operating a very quick double edged negative feedback ensuring that deviations in either direction are brought back to a basic equilibrium which is set not by any characteristic of the air but by the oceans acting with the sun over aeons.
Stephen Wilde (10:06:08) :
we do not have a firm grip on the level of variability of the different wavelengths arriving at the ocean surface and therefore the level of variability in the rate of penetration of energy into the oceans.
That is correct, but for one small detail: we know it is very tiny, and being so it doesn’t matter precisely how tiny, unless you have a specific mechanism explaining and quantifying how a tiny input X can cause a significant signal S.
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:23) :
Stephen Wilde (10:06:08) :
“we do not have a firm grip on the level of variability of the different wavelengths arriving at the ocean surface and therefore the level of variability in the rate of penetration of energy into the oceans”.
That is correct, but for one small detail: we know it is very tiny, and being so it doesn’t matter precisely how tiny, unless you have a specific mechanism explaining and quantifying how a tiny input X can cause a significant signal S.
I’ll elaborate on that. The UV is less that 10% of TSI and the amount that reaches the Ocean [and not absorbed higher up] is smaller yet. TSI varies over the solar cycle by 0.1% and the UV that penetrates to the Oceans varies the same 0.1%, but since it is less than 10% of TSI, the heat retained and due to UV is less than 10% of the heat due to TSI overall, so why attach any significance to this? [especially since the near UV (which is the only part reaching the Ocean) hardly varies with the cycle].
Leif,
I think we are narrowing the issues down quite nicely.
TSI is not the issue. The varying amount of solar radiation getting past the evaporative barrier and thus deeper into the oceans is the issue.
That issue is a function more of the Solar Irradiance Spectrum (or Solar Spectral Irradiance – which is it ?)
I take the point that the amounts involved are tiny but that is a subjective assessment. It doesn’t matter how ‘tiny’ the variations are if the system is finely balanced and I think that climate observations show that it is very finely balanced with constant 30 year switching between net warming and net cooling.
In fact the more powerfully you argue that solar output is approximately stable the more one is forced to the view that what must be effecting the phase changes in the oceans is variations in the wavelengths within the solar energy being received and/or variations in the oceanic responses to those changes. You have previously conceded that there is more UV at solar minimum so you cannot now argue that the variation in UV is zero so that leaves us just with a sensitivity issue which suits me fine.
The point that the near UV is the only part reaching the ocean matters not. If that is all that reaches the ocean then that is all the oceans get in order to maintain their temperature because longer wavelengths generally do not get past the evaporative barrier. If that minor portion of the solar spectrum is the most important component of the whole spectrum and carries out practically all the work of setting and maintaining ocean temperatures then the fact that it is such a tiny part of a much greater whole is irrelevant.
The specific mechanism for increasing or decreasing the oceanic heat content would appear to be variations in both the amount of solar shortwave energy that gets past the evaporative barrier and changes within the oceans at approximately 30 year intervals which neutralise the temperature differentials that built up over the previous 30 years from the variations in shortwave radiation received. Currently it seems to take about 30 years for the process to overwhelm other oceanic variables and cause a phase shift. It might have been faster or slower in earlier millennia.
The small variations in the tiny input X accumulate over several solar cycles to cause a significant signal S which is the oceanic phase shift. The smoking gun and the dead body previously mentioned 🙂
Now, that is seperate from any longer term background trend which I believe does nevertheless exist and I am not content that you have adequately dealt with that aspect in this link (from you above) which I have now considered:
http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
That item is best discussed in a seperate thread so I won’t go into my queries here.
tallbloke (04:01:18) :
The lack of a clear numerical relationship between seasonal TSI, annual steric change
Let me try again. Since 1880 SL has increased 200 mm, or 1.6 mm/yr. Over the past 8000 year, the SL has changed 4.8 m or 4800 mm or 0.6 mm/yr. If we assume that of the 1.6 mm/yr, 0.6 mm/yr is due to that long-term rise [otherwise argue why not], then the recent increase in 1.6-0.6 = 1 mm/yr. The steric increase [and decline] each year is 7 mm due to the 90 W/m2 annual variation of TSI [leaving the usual factor of 4 and the albedo as a but constant factor], meaning that sensitivity of the SL to TSI is 7/90 = 0.08 mm/(W/m2) or a required 90/7 = 13 W/m2 per mm of SL, so a 1 mm/yr change since 1880 would require a change of 125 yr*13 W/m2 = 1600 W/m2 in TSI which clearly did not happen.
Leif Svalgaard (08:51:05) :
tallbloke (04:01:18) :
tallbloke (04:22:26) :
“I would think that if the 90 W/m2 annual variation is the cause of the 7 mm, then it would take an increase of 90/7*1.2 = 15 W/m2 per year of TSI to explain the 1.2 mm/yr if that rise is due to TSI. And 15 W/m2 per year seems a bit excessive.”
1) The lack of a clear numerical relationship between seasonal TSI, annual steric change
There is a clear numerical relationship as the Figure shows and as I elaborate on. That is doesn’t show up in the long-term change simply means that it is not there.
Fig 1shows a relationship between steric level changes and time. I don’t see TSI labeled anywhere on the diagram.
Stephen Wilde (11:22:29) :
You have previously conceded that there is more UV at solar minimum so you cannot now argue that the variation in UV is zero so that leaves us just with a sensitivity issue which suits me fine.
There is more in the band 242-310, but not much more [a few tenths of a W/m2] and it is rather balanced with more at other wavelengths. On the whole, all of UV follows TSI closely.
If that minor portion of the solar spectrum is the most important component of the whole spectrum and carries out practically all the work of setting and maintaining ocean temperatures then the fact that it is such a tiny part of a much greater whole is irrelevant.
You have to convince me that the few W/m2 of near UV does more than the 1350 W/m2 of non-UV. We know how much 1350 W/m2 does [gives us a temperature of 288K].
Currently it seems to take about 30 years for the process to overwhelm other oceanic variables and cause a phase shift.
One of the points of the paper under discussion was that there is no “the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred”.
I am not content that you have adequately dealt with that aspect in this link (from you above) which I have now considered:
http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
The various reconstructions of TSI are converging on the main result: no background long-term change. “Adequately” is subject to Leif’s law.
tallbloke (11:56:05) :
Fig 1shows a relationship between steric level changes and time. I don’t see TSI labeled anywhere on the diagram.
TSI varies 90 W/m2 during the year, every year. I don’t think TSI has to be on the Figure to establish that. The 90W/m2 cycle is faithfully followed by the 7 mm cycle [after a delay of a few months – as it should].
Stephen Wilde.
“If that minor portion of the solar spectrum is the most important component of the whole spectrum and carries out practically all the work of setting and maintaining ocean temperatures then the fact that it is such a tiny part of a much greater whole is irrelevant.”
Leif Svalgaard.
“You have to convince me that the few W/m2 of near UV does more than the 1350 W/m2 of non-UV. We know how much 1350 W/m2 does [gives us a temperature of 288K”
If other wavelengths are involved in warming the oceans then variations in wavelengths within the total spectrum are likely to be more significant not less. A small temperature increase resulting in a shift of the whole spectrum towards the shortwave would have a disproportionate effect on the amount of energy entering the oceans because a larger proportion of the spectrum would become capable of penetrating the ocean surface and those that could already penetrate it would go deeper. That is what we observe – the global temperature changes are out of proportion to the size of the temperature change from variations in solar output. Additionally the oceans modulate those changes over 30 year phases.
If the near UV is the only part that reaches the ocean surface (you said it) and longer wavelengths do not get past the evaporative barrier then we have to accept that it is whatever gets into the oceans that sets the 288K temperature because the ocean temperatures control the surface air temperaures.
Stephen Wilde
Currently it seems to take about 30 years for the process to overwhelm other oceanic variables and cause a phase shift.
Leif Svalgaard.
One of the points of the paper under discussion was that there is no “the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred
A 30 year phase change is not a long time constant.
tallbloke (11:56:05) :
“Fig 1shows a relationship between steric level changes and time. I don’t see TSI labeled anywhere on the diagram.”
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:35) :
TSI varies 90 W/m2 during the year, every year.
This graphs shows the variation of TSI measured by SORCE/TIM since 2003 lined up on January 1st every year: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
You can see 7 yearly curves mostly just falling on top of each other. They show the very large and regular yearly variation of what the Earth gets from the Sun, varying because the distance to the Sun varies. The tiny wiggles you might see here and there are what is caused by solar activity and which people think are controlling the climate. You might see about six wiggles, cause by very large spots. All the rest of solar activity you simply cannot distinctly see because the variations are so tiny. This puts things a bit in perspective. The large 90W/m2 variation is what causes the 7 mm variation in the steric sea-level. What do you think the mostly invisible wiggles cause?
Re: Tallbloke:
Your assessment regarding ozone depletion is probably not caused by chlorine containing molecules is correct. New evidence refutes the said theory. The exact paper escapes my memory, however. Sorry about that.
Stephen Wilde (12:41:54) :
A small temperature increase resulting in a shift of the whole spectrum towards the shortwave would have a disproportionate effect
direct observations of the Sun show no such shift. This was my first quote of Livingston et al.’s result. 30-years of observations have shown no change in the temperature of the Sun [the temperature determines where the radiation curve is: higher temperature it shifts left, lower, it shifts right].
whatever gets into the oceans that sets the 288K temperature because the ocean temperatures control the surface air temperaures.
Sure, it is good ole TSI with 90% in the visible.
A 30 year phase change is not a long time constant.
they rule out a storage time longer than a few months, was the point.
Re: Tallbloke:
This may be the site which claims to refute the ozone depletion theory:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
Willi
Leif Svalgaard.
“There is more in the band 242-310, but not much more [a few tenths of a W/m2] and it is rather balanced with more at other wavelengths. On the whole, all of UV follows TSI closely”
It doesn’t matter whether it follows TSI closely.
It doesn’t matter that changes are balanced elsewhere. If the 242 – 310 band or any other wavelength that penetrates the oceans increases then more energy will enter the oceans.
It doesn’t matter how small the changes are because it is a sensitivity issue.
The point is that more of the radiation that CAN penetrate the ocean surface becomes available to put energy into the oceans.
A ‘few tenths of a Wm/2’ would be quite enough over a 30 year period and highly effective over a few centuries. There’s a lot of ocean surface out there and it doesn’t fling energy back out to space right away as do the air and the land.
“direct observations of the Sun show no such shift. This was my first quote of Livingston et al.’s result. 30-years of observations have shown no change in the temperature of the Sun [the temperature determines where the radiation curve is: higher temperature it shifts left, lower, it shifts right]. ”
I’ve been referring to a redistribution of wavelengths within the spectrum. A shift in the entire spectrum would be a bonus. Over the past 30 years solar activity has been at a historic high so I would not expect to see much change in that period. I’ve always said that solar changes work on century time scales with oceanic changes dealing with the multidecadal phase shifts.
Sure, it is good ole TSI with 90% in the visible.”
So you say that most of the TSI gets past the evaporative barrier and into the oceans ? Even weak longwave that only affects the top couple of microns ?
Yet at the same time you say that barely 5% of UV reaches the ocean surface?
“A 30 year phase change is not a long time constant.
they rule out a storage time longer than a few months, was the point”
They are noting the effect of individual ENSO events. They have not properly considered the 30 year phase shifts.
“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”
Actually they do accept the significance of the 30 year phase shifts so what do they mean by ‘long time constants’ ?
Stephen Wilde (13:06:46) :
A ‘few tenths of a Wm/2′ would be quite enough over a 30 year period and highly effective over a few centuries. There’s a lot of ocean surface out there and it doesn’t fling energy back out to space right away as do the air and the land.
See below
I’ve been referring to a redistribution of wavelengths within the spectrum.
The sun doesn’t work like that. The shape of the spectrum is determined by the temperature.
They are noting the effect of individual ENSO events. They have not properly considered the 30 year phase shifts.
The direct measurements by ARGO shows that there is no long-term heat storage. There was an extensive discussion of the ARGO data on this very blog a few months back http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
Oh, I see what happened. This was my initial exchange with Leif:
Stephen Wilde
Currently it seems to take about 30 years for the process to overwhelm other oceanic variables and cause a phase shift.
Leif Svalgaard.
One of the points of the paper under discussion was that there is no possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.
Thus,
by diverting the issue to one of ‘long time constants’ Leif avoided the issue.
It does not matter whether or not ‘long term constants’ as defined in the initial article exist or not. I am not proposing any particular proportion of the heat (energy) transferred as being responsible for the phase changes, indeed it could be a very small proportion.
The fact is that the changes in energy input to the oceans are not fully cancelled by ENSO events so for about 30 years a residual imbalance builds up until a phase shift occurs.
Contrary to what Leif tried to suggest my contentions are consistent with the proposals in the initial article.
Unfortunatelt I note quite a few similar instances in the above posts between myself and Leif.
Stephen Wilde (13:06:46) :
A ‘few tenths of a Wm/2′ would be quite enough over a 30 year period and highly effective over a few centuries.
Here is a compilation of Ocean Heat Content [per square meter] from several sources since 1955:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ocean-Heat-Content-1955-2004.png
“The direct measurements by ARGO shows that there is no long-term heat storage. There was an extensive discussion of the ARGO data on this very blog a few months back http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat”
Talk about continually missing the point.
I have always said that the oceans vary the rates of energy emission to the air and the air circulation systems alter the speed of the hydrological cycle to restore equilibrium both between sea surface and surface air temperatures and thus over time also equalising the solar energy arriving at the Earth with energy departing the Earth.
Thus it is part of my scenario that there are no long term changes in heat storage in the oceans or elsewhere because the web of negative feedbacks based on the properties of water and it’s various changes in state prevents it.
The so called equilibrium temperature is, under my description, a very long term very stable product of a combination between sun and oceans over aeons.
I am more used to having such difficulties with warming enthusiasts.
Some effort is required for me to understand the contentions of others and it would be nice to get more reciprocation.
“The sun doesn’t work like that. The shape of the spectrum is determined by the temperature”
Then you should have addressed that point when I raised my initial question so that by now we could have had a focussed exchange and made some progress.
I asked this:
“For example the sun provides energy to us at a whole spectrum of wavelengths so what I want to know is how much variability there is in the distribution of wavelengths within the total energy supplied to us.
You said:
This is given by something called the Spectral Irradiance, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/ssi_data.htm”
Your reference to the Spectral Irradiance data led me to believe there was some such variability and now you say there is none.
An extract from the Solar Irradiance link:
“Also, the solar ultraviolet, which varies far more than the TSI, influences stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, which in turn controls the small fraction of ultraviolet radiation that leaks through to the surface.”
My concern is specifically in the parts of the solar spectrum that both reach the ocean surface and are able to penetrate beyond the region near the ocean surface involved in evaporation so that the energy content of the oceans can be affected.
Does it vary or does it not ?
Stephen Wilde (14:25:03) :
“Also, the solar ultraviolet, which varies far more than the TSI,
The UV is but a small fraction of TSI, so cannot vary more than TSI. [It varies more relatively, but that is irrelevant – let me explain with some made up (but reasonable) numbers. Let the Extreme UV vary from 0.1 to 0.2 W/m2, that is a variation of 100% and assume that all the rest stays the same then TSI varies from 1360.1 to 1360.2 or 0.007%. So while the 100% is a lot more than 0.007%, the variation of energy we get from the extreme UV compared to what we get from TSI is minute and negligible.
Does it vary or does it not ?
so it varies a great deal in one sense and not really in the sense that matters, namely how much heat we can get from it. You were trying to convince me that the heating of the Ocean would come from the minute UV and not at all from the huge TSI.
Thus it is part of my scenario that there are no long term changes in heat storage in the oceans or elsewhere
So therefore no slow accumulation of a tiny contribution from solar activity.
A reply to tallbloke bears repeating:
This graphs shows the variation of TSI measured by SORCE/TIM since 2003 lined up on January 1st every year: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
You can see 7 yearly curves mostly just falling on top of each other. They show the very large and regular yearly variation of what the Earth gets from the Sun, varying because the distance to the Sun varies. The tiny wiggles you might see here and there are what is caused by solar activity and which people think are controlling the climate. You might see about six wiggles, cause by very large spots. All the rest of solar activity you simply cannot distinctly see because the variations are so tiny. This puts things a bit in perspective. The large 90W/m2 variation is what causes the 7 mm variation in the steric sea-level. What do you think the mostly invisible wiggles cause?
The ARGO data shows that the 90W/m2 annual variation enters the Oceans quickly and disappears just as quickly. The invisible wiggles would also enter quickly and disappear quickly.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Currently it seems to take about 30 years for the process to overwhelm other oceanic variables and cause a phase shift.”
Do you have a source for that 30 years? I believe it originated with climate modellers trying to explain the decrease in SST anomalies from 1870 to 1910.
http://i33.tinypic.com/rixdzq.jpg
They were trying to work out some lagged effect from volcanic aerosols.
“Thus it is part of my scenario that there are no long term changes in heat storage in the oceans or elsewhere
So therefore no slow accumulation of a tiny contribution from solar activity”
The absence of an edit function is a nuisance.
Long term as in very long term.
As always there will be movements around the very long term equilibrium for all sorts of reasons including century scale changes in solar activity and other changes on various time scales but essentially all the feedbacks are negative so as to retain our liquid oceans.
“Does it vary or does it not ?
so it varies a great deal in one sense and not really in the sense that matters, namely how much heat we can get from it. You were trying to convince me that the heating of the Ocean would come from the minute UV and not at all from the huge TSI”
Yet again you avoid the issue. I never selected UV in isolation, you did.
I am referring to and always have referred to ALL the parts of the solar spectrum that both reach the ocean surface and are able to penetrate beyond the region near the ocean surface involved in evaporation so that the energy content of the oceans can be affected.
If that is only a minute part of the spectrum then so be it. That is all the oceans have to work with.
Bob Tisdale (15:43:05)
I’m puzzled by your question. There are lots of sources for an approximate 30 year phase shift in the Pacific and I’ve seen the evidence in your material elsewhere.
I am aware that other oceans have shifts on different timescales and that they can supplement or offset each other and the solar cycle but the 30 year shift is widely accepted as a real world observation even if the PDO itself is a statistical artifact derived from ENSO data.
Stephen Wilde (16:03:01) :
I can’t figure out what you are saying.
I am referring to and always have referred to ALL the parts of the solar spectrum that both reach the ocean surface and are able to penetrate beyond the region near the ocean surface involved in evaporation so that the energy content of the oceans can be affected.Stephen Wilde (16:03:01) :
“Thus it is part of my scenario that there are no long term changes in heat storage in the oceans or elsewhere
So therefore no slow accumulation of a tiny contribution from solar activity”
The absence of an edit function is a nuisance.
Long term as in very long term.
As always there will be movements around the very long term equilibrium for all sorts of reasons including century scale changes in solar activity and other changes on various time scales but essentially all the feedbacks are negative so as to retain our liquid oceans.
“Does it vary or does it not ?
so it varies a great deal in one sense and not really in the sense that matters, namely how much heat we can get from it. You were trying to convince me that the heating of the Ocean would come from the minute UV and not at all from the huge TSI”
Yet again you avoid the issue. I never selected UV in isolation, you did.
I am referring to and always have referred to ALL the parts of the solar spectrum that both reach the ocean surface and are able to penetrate beyond the region near the ocean surface involved in evaporation so that the energy content of the oceans can be affected.
ALL parts of the spectrum is TSI. If you want only to restrict it to a certain part [your word ‘and’] then tell me specifically the wavelength interval of that part, because I have no clue to what you mean.
If that is only a minute part of the spectrum then so be it. That is all the oceans have to work with.
I think the oceans have a lot to work with, and that that lot hardly varies, because it doesn’t vary much just before entry to the water. But, again, I’m lost as to what the ‘issue’ is, and am not avoiding it. I never do, but if I have not grokked your question, the answer is going to be on the thin side.
I was right on the Solar Corona temperature “paradox”:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/jing/papers/50554.web.pdf
Too many charged particles there, hum?
Nasif Nahle (16:56:12) :
I was right on the Solar Corona temperature “paradox”:
Too many charged particles there, hum?
explain yourself.
Leif Svalgaard (17:35:28) :
Nasif Nahle (16:56:12) :
I was right on the Solar Corona temperature “paradox”:
Too many charged particles there, hum?
explain yourself.
Few days ago you asked for an explanation on the paradox of the high temperature of the solar corona above a colder photosphere. I answered with two possible explanations:
1. A non- completely gaseous Sun.
2. Quantum tunneling, i.e. changes in Higgs’ energy density fields by excess of charged particles (protons and electrons) trapped in the top center of the Higgs’ field that are washed through the barrier out to an oscillating state between two equilibrium states.
The authors of the paper attribute the paradox to charged particles (electrons) trapped in the solar corona promoted by magnetoholes. Their discovery is compatible with my former-speculation, now a hypothesis, on quantum tunneling for explaining the high temperature of the solar corona.
Nasif Nahle (18:08:55) :
The authors of the paper attribute the paradox to charged particles (electrons) trapped in the solar corona promoted by magnetoholes.
The solar corona is electrically neutral [like you are] and contains equal number of electrons and protons [ignoring a smattering of Helium and heavier nuclei]. The electrons scatter light [like an automobile headlights on a fogy night] and so ‘light’ up the corona so we can see it. They measure the electron density by this. This does not mean that there is a large excess of electron produced by some mysterious process, and is not part of the paradox, which is why they are so hot?
Their discovery is compatible with my former-speculation, now a hypothesis, on quantum tunneling for explaining the high temperature of the solar corona.
I’m sure they would not agree, so your idea has no basis. But perhaps the quantum tunneling is related to minimal supergravity under the assumption of strong CP violation of the Peccei-Quinn mechanism….
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:39) :
Nasif Nahle (18:08:55) :
The authors of the paper attribute the paradox to charged particles (electrons) trapped in the solar corona promoted by magnetoholes.
The solar corona is electrically neutral [like you are] and contains equal number of electrons and protons [ignoring a smattering of Helium and heavier nuclei]. The electrons scatter light [like an automobile headlights on a fogy night] and so ‘light’ up the corona so we can see it. They measure the electron density by this. This does not mean that there is a large excess of electron produced by some mysterious process, and is not part of the paradox, which is why they are so hot?
For the same reason the Universe shifted from a supercooled state to a superhot state 10^-37 seconds before the inflationary process.
I’m sure they would not agree, so your idea has no basis. But perhaps the quantum tunneling is related to minimal supergravity under the assumption of strong CP violation of the Peccei-Quinn mechanism…
You cannot talk for others. I don’t wish to start another ad infinitum discussion on this issue, but it seems you don’t know that quantum tunneling has been demonstrated many times in colliders.
Nasif Nahle (21:17:10) :
it seems you don’t know that quantum tunneling has been demonstrated many times in colliders.
This becomes axiomatic if the complex eigenfrequencies are calculated for buoyancy considered in Boussinesq approximation.
Stephen Wilde
“I am referring to and always have referred to ALL the parts of the solar spectrum that both reach the ocean surface and are able to penetrate beyond the region near the ocean surface involved in evaporation so that the energy content of the oceans can be affected.”
Leif Svalgaard
“ALL parts of the spectrum is TSI. If you want only to restrict it to a certain part [your word ‘and’] then tell me specifically the wavelength interval of that part, because I have no clue to what you mean.”
Funny thing the English language.
Some parts of the solar spectrum can penetrate the ocean surfaces, others cannot.Some parts can reach the ocean surface and others cannot. Some parts penetrate it better than others. Yet you seem unable to accept that. Nor do you accept that over time there might be enough variability in the supply of energy to the oceans and the rate of release of energy by the oceans to make a significant difference to the ocean energy content.
Now I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I have been using this thread to see how well you can discredit my climate descriptions and I fully expected you to come up with something that would at least force some serious revision and possibly screw it up altogether.
However with you I’ve come up with the same brick wall as with all warming enthusiasts, namely, that there are real world observations that your stance does not account for.
On the other hand my climate description does fit real world events even if there remains some need to go further and ascertain exactly why it does.
So, on this thread I am done and nothing yet to cause me undue concern.
There are real world processes going on which you cannot account for at all but which I am at least partly accounting for subject to an acknowledged need for future revision as new real world data comes in over time.
Stephen Wilde (22:09:25) :
Some parts of the solar spectrum can penetrate the ocean surfaces, others cannot. Some parts can reach the ocean surface and others cannot. Some parts penetrate it better than others. Yet you seem unable to accept that.
What you say is trivially true. But which parts they are do not change over time scales less than perhaps 10s of millions of years.
Nor do you accept that over time there might be enough variability in the supply of energy to the oceans and the rate of release of energy by the oceans to make a significant difference to the ocean energy content.
Observational data does not indicate any significant change over time scales of millennea [over the past 9000 years TSI has not deviated more that 1 W/m2 from the mean for any extended period
Now I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I have been using this thread to see how well you can discredit my climate descriptions
I’m not trying to discredit your beliefs, just to define the boundaries of solar variations within which you have to fit.
Leif Svalgaard (12:54:32) :
tallbloke (11:56:05) :
“Fig 1shows a relationship between steric level changes and time. I don’t see TSI labeled anywhere on the diagram.”
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:35) :
TSI varies 90 W/m2 during the year, every year.
This is strange. Normally, when the argument is put forward that the 90W/m^2 variation in TSI makes a difference to climate, you are quick to point out how much less than 90W/m^2 by the time it hits the surface. But now when you think it suits your case, you entirely gloss over this and all the other factors which I pointed up.
Nornally you knock 30% off to account for albedo and then divide by four to account for the for the angle of incidence of the radiation to the spherically curved surface of the Earth.
So we are talking about 15W/m^2 variation in the insolation which actually hits the ocean causing the 7mm annual change in sea level, without taking into account the other factors Maksomovitch and I mentioned. Given that small changes in cloud cover in important areas can make big differences to recieved insolation at the surface, the complexion of the discussion is completely changed.
Especially as UV is more able to penetrate cloud as well as ocean depth.
Just a nit, but the divide by 4 isn’t really due to the angle of incidence (though that may have some effect) it is due to the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere: 1 to 4.
Mark
Leif,
I see you did address the TOA/surface difference further down the thread, so apologies, I’ve been away this weekend and had a lot of catch up to do. But you said:
“The steric increase [and decline] each year is 7 mm due to the 90 W/m2 annual variation of TSI [leaving the usual factor of 4 and the albedo as a but constant factor], ”
This has a few assumptions built in. Two are:
1)That the relationship between TSI and surface received insolation is linear.
2)The steric increase and decline is equal.
Neither of these is observed for the C20th. Cloud decreased 1980-1998, and the steric rise and fall were unequal.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ocean-Heat-Content-1955-2004.png
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
Leif:
“The UV is less that 10% of TSI and the amount that reaches the Ocean [and not absorbed higher up] is smaller yet. TSI varies over the solar cycle by 0.1% and the UV that penetrates to the Oceans varies the same 0.1%, but since it is less than 10% of TSI, the heat retained and due to UV is less than 10% of the heat due to TSI overall, so why attach any significance to this? [especially since the near UV (which is the only part reaching the Ocean) hardly varies with the cycle].”
But then you also told Stephen that the amount of power in EXTREME UV was tiny. Why obfuscate like this? Also you ignore the variation in ozone as a factor, but continue to argue as if your figures are chiselled on stone tablets.
Stephen should note that I calculated that to account for the thermal component of the sea level rise 1993-2003, the ocean must have retained around 2.5% of the received energy. Leif ignores accumulated energy retained due to deeper oceanic mixing which is evidenced by ARGO, XBT, and earlier more primitive test devices. TSI varies over the solar cycle by 0.1-0.2% but as we have been discussing, a bigger proportion of TSI at minimum is the ocean-effective-to-greater-depth UV.
Reduced ozone and the associated increase of surface reaching UV also affects the plankton negatively (as evidenced by lower surface feeding fish catches during positive PDO and AMO), and so means even more energy penetrating deeper into the ocean.
You really shouldn’t make dismissive statements when you are so obviously not informed about these other factors.
Another breath of fresh air (not CO2 heavy) – thanks Anthony. Give it to the AGW’s !
“Leif Svalgaard.
“There is more in the band 242-310, but not much more [a few tenths of a W/m2”
I think we just have to agree to disagree as to the extent that the climate system may be sensitive to changes on the scale you mentioned over lengthy periods of time.
I found this comment elsewhere. Is it accurate ?
“A very interesting feature at least of the current solar minimum is the changes in the solar spectrum which occur with large falls in the UV compensated to some degree by increases in the near infra-red.”
It doesn’t accord with Leif’s comments in this thread.
Less UV getting into the oceans and more infrared being neutralised by evaporation with only a small change in TSI would fit my scenario nicely.
Mark T (23:36:17) :
Just a nit, but the divide by 4 isn’t really due to the angle of incidence (though that may have some effect) it is due to the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere: 1 to 4.
Mark
If that was the case, wouldn’t we have to multiply by 4 rather than divide?
Stephen Wilde (01:20:46) :
“Leif Svalgaard.
“There is more in the band 242-310, but not much more [a few tenths of a W/m2″
I think we just have to agree to disagree as to the extent that the climate system may be sensitive to changes on the scale you mentioned over lengthy periods of time.
Stephen, I’ve been trying to explain to Leif for some time that the ocean is much more sensitive to changes in solar activity than a facile and superficial examination of the temperature data reveals. I appreciate Leifs POV that evidence for that has to be presented, and I have amassed quite a bit. Until I am able to quantify them Leif will continue to dismiss them and carry on repeating his line.
This is fair enough in some respects, and we should regard this as a spur to our endeavour, rather than rail against him. It would be nice if there were more hands on the pump handle, but I fear too many take his line at face value and so don’t regard the effort as worthwhile, which is a shame. I wish Leif would acknowledge the possibilities more, but he is an old skool positivist who likes to maintain the illusion of scientific certainty.
From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello ·William C. Livingston ·
Alexei A. Pevtsov · Jagdev Singh · Andrey G. Tlatov ·
Roger K. Ulrich
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m95w93084l347746/fulltext.pdf
the Kodaikanal and NSO time series should provide a better
approximation to the bright component contribution to (a) UV variability at wavelengths that
originate in the upper photosphere (including the important range between about 170 and
240 nm mainly responsible for ozone concentration) and to (b) the total solar irradiance.
For the two Kodaikanal- and SP-based
indices the agreement with sunspot number is less satisfactory. Again, as before, cycles 18
and 19 are weaker, and cycle 21 is stronger, than in the sunspot number.
So, the UV effect was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.
This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in TSI than cycle 21.
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
This is strange. Normally, when the argument is put forward that the 90W/m^2 variation in TSI makes a difference to climate, you are quick to point out how much less than 90W/m^2 by the time it hits the surface.
So what? This makes no difference to the argument. And it is easier to simply stick to the TOA value.
“The steric increase [and decline] each year is 7 mm due to the 90 W/m2 annual variation of TSI [leaving the usual factor of 4 and the albedo as a but constant factor], ”
This has a few assumptions built in. Two are:
1)That the relationship between TSI and surface received insolation is linear.
2)The steric increase and decline is equal.
these make no difference as the variation is small.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ocean-Heat-Content-1955-2004.png
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules.
You really shouldn’t make dismissive statements when you are so obviously not informed about these other factors.
These factors are all second order effects and do not alter the main argument.
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules. And it is an anomaly, measured relative to 1971. Perhaps I should have stressed that. The label ‘OHCA’ was meant to convey that: Ocean Heat Content Anomaly.
Mark T (23:36:17) :
Just a nit, but the divide by 4 isn’t really due to the angle of incidence (though that may have some effect) it is due to the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere: 1 to 4.
As long as we are in the nit-department: The ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere is 1 to 2. There is another factor of two because the night side doesn’t get any light, for a total of 4.
Leif Svalgaard (06:02:52) :
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules.
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg. I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
Leif Svalgaard (05:46:55) :
it is easier to simply stick to the TOA value.
these make no difference as the variation is small.
These factors are all second order effects and do not alter the main argument.
Well as you’ve pointed out elsewhere, we live on the surface, not at the toip of the atmosphere, and if you are going to speculate about the effect of TSI on surface temperatures, you should consider the values at the surface, not TOA. Hence my comment about the surface difference being 15W/m^2 annually due to orbital considerations. Now let’s consider that figure in relation to Maksamovitch’s comment about flora having a 45W/m^2 effect; doesn’t sound small or second order anymore does it? Particularly when the variation in the fish stocks indicative of the plankton biomass varies so dramatically over the 60 year oceanic cycle. Less biomass on ocean surface=significantly more penetration of insolation into the ocean.
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
You just did.
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
tallbloke (04:39:14) :
This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in TSI than cycle 21.
See in the tread where it is more appropriate.
tallbloke (07:11:01) :
Maksamovitch’s comment about flora having a 45W/m^2 effect
That would be a fifth of the total and does not sound credible and might even be a circular argument because the flora depends on the temperature. But instead of jumping all over the place, let’s substantiate that 45 W/m2 effect. He said 45 mW/m2, that is milliWatt, or a thousand times smaller than what you believe. I consider that a second [or third] order effect, but am always willing to learn.
Leif Svalgaard (07:24:53) :
let’s substantiate that 45 W/m2 effect. He said 45 mW/m2, that is milliWatt, or a thousand times smaller than what you believe. I consider that a second [or third] order effect, but am always willing to learn.
Haha!
So am I Leif, so am I. :o)
Still think it’ll be worth a hunt on plankton effects though.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “I’m puzzled by your question. There are lots of sources for an approximate 30 year phase shift in the Pacific and I’ve seen the evidence in your material elsewhere.”
Sorry. I went back and read what context you had written it in. My error.
Aha
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TqqMlOxmfZkC&pg=PA501&lpg=PT499&ots=8sWugIEKPj&dq=%22Holligan%22+%22Do+marine+phytoplankton+influence+global+climate%22+&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22Holligan%22%20%22Do%20marine%20phytoplankton%20influence%20global%20climate%22&f=false
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:48) :
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
Ah well, that’s part of the fun innit? 😉
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
Not at all, just because a subgroup of climatologists say something incorrect, we don’t have to perpetuate the error.
Anyway, enough of that, pretty please will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above. (I think you mentioned the paper to STephen in another context upthread).
I have to go to work soon, you’ll be pleased to hear. 😉
tallbloke (07:32:50) :
So am I Leif, so am I.
But did you? Or do you still think that it is 45W/m2 rather than 0.045W/m2?
tallbloke (07:56:33) :
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Read Kirk’s paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD093iD09p10897.pdf
He is dealing with the color of the water. It has an influence on the vertical distribution, but not on the heat actually absorbed overall.
will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above.
See over in the Livingston thread.
Leif Svalgaard (08:07:06) :
tallbloke (07:32:50) :
So am I Leif, so am I.
But did you? Or do you still think that it is 45W/m2 rather than 0.045W/m2?
I went back and checked Maksamovitch’s post. You were right, I was wrong. That clear enough? 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (08:19:50) :
tallbloke (07:56:33) :
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Read Kirk’s paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD093iD09p10897.pdf
He is dealing with the color of the water. It has an influence on the vertical distribution, but not on the heat actually absorbed overall.
The book has other things to say too, unfortunately, it looks like I’ll have to get a library copy, as the relevant pages are not part of google’s preview.
will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above.
See over in the Livingston thread.
Ta, I’ll take a look later.
tallbloke (08:25:55) :
I went back and checked Maksamovitch’s post. You were right, I was wrong. That clear enough? 🙂
See, you were a victim of Leif’s law: The uncritical acceptance of any data [or misread data] as long as it fits…
Leif Svalgaard (06:13:17) :
As long as we are in the nit-department: The ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere is 1 to 2.
Oops, yes.
There is another factor of two because the night side doesn’t get any light, for a total of 4.
Um, that doesn’t make any sense. The term “hemisphere” assumes you are only considering one side to begin with. Now I’m confused.
Mark
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:48) :
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
You just did.
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
It is your personal language. Heat content does not exist, not here, not there. Heat units are Watts; and tallbloke is correct, the units on that graph must be J s^-1/m^2, if you want to include Joules instead Watts.
1 J (energy) is not equal to 1 W (power, heat).
1 J /second (power, heat) is equal to 1 W (power, heat).
1 W (power, heat) is not equal to 1 J (energy)
1 W*s (energy) is equal to 1 J (energy)
CLEAN science.
REPLY: This entire discussion is getting idiotic. I may very well close the thread. Best to stop now.
-Anthony Joules-per-second
Leif,tallbloke
According to Trenberth 1366 W TSI is 161 W absorbed by the surface. This is amplified by GHGs (*3) and maybe *2 by water vapor feedback, and, after a few decades, amplified by snow and ice cover changes. So 1 W TSI increase is perhaps (161/1366)*3*2*1.4=1 W climate effect, after a few decades.
lgl (09:12:03) :
So 1 W TSI increase is perhaps (161/1366)*3*2*1.4=1 W climate effect, after a few decades.
So Temps should trail solar activity by a ‘few decades’. How many is a few? 3? So T should trail solar activity by 30 years. I don’t think it does. And if it did, why all the moaning about solar minimum and instant cooling? Anyway, long-term TSI has not increased 1 W/m2.
For 1890-1950 TSI was 1365.85 and for 1950-2009 1365.94, i.e. only 0.1 W increase.
**********
frederic (08:17:23) :
beng (10:01:01)
Thanks for answer
Do you think that cooling of oceanic bottom waters by sinking of polar cold waters is actually more efficient that the heating of those waters by the geothermal gradient ? Or do you think that such kind of question is off subject when talking about the évolution of climate during past centuries ?
I once calculated that elevating the temperature of all oceanic waters of 1°C needs as much heat than melting the ice caps of the Wurm what took less than 5000 years
*********
frederic, I still couldn’t find those papers — sorry.
Your question relates to some earlier questions — like how can 40F water stand between both warmer crust & warmer atmosphere (or top-water if you like). Couple answers — the cold bottom water is continually being renewed to some extent by melting glaciers/ice (especially during the big glacial meltdowns), and that the cold water is in fact very well insulated by the crust below and warm water above. Pure heat conduction thru kilometers of material, even water, is feeble in rate compared to other processes (convection & radiation), especially when there is little mixing/movement of the materials.
So overall the geothermal heat from earth’s molten core is so well insulated by the solidified crust as to be negligible overall compared to solar input. It also explains how the cold deepwater can be “stored” in such a state — good insulation on both sides & continual replacement at some rate.
Leif,
So Temps should trail solar activity by a ‘few decades’
No, PDO, ENSO and volcanoes rule on shorter than 60 yrs time scales so it’s very difficult to determine the solar influence on a decadal scale. And the ice cover adjustment probably takes centuries so you should start from the Maunder. The TSI can easily have increased 1 W from then to late 20th century, and that’s more than enough to explain the higher ocean heat content if most of it stayed in the ocean, but of course most of the increase reradiates.
lgl (12:56:33) :
so you should start from the Maunder. The TSI can easily have increased 1 W from then to late 20th century, and that’s more than enough to explain the higher ocean heat content if most of it stayed in the ocean
So you are proposing that the increase seen over the last several decades is the integrated effect of the past 300 years? I don’t think you’ll have many takers on that one, and you’ll have a hard time convincing the ‘coolers’ out there that reduced solar activity the last cycle has [or will] undone a significant fraction of the heating.
The real issue is what makes the heat stay in the oceans. Try to find some calculations of the cooling time of a 3000 m thick layer of water.
Leif: I figured out what was meant, which I already knew, just forgot! 🙂
Mark
lgl: You wrote, “No, PDO, ENSO and volcanoes rule on shorter than 60 yrs time scales so it’s very difficult to determine the solar influence on a decadal scale.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, so it’s volcanoes and ENSO rule, in that order.
tallbloke (01:15:28) :
Can you see a way any of those three might be able to transfer energy downwards to depths of 700m or more, well beyond the 70m or so that is the limit of where the transfer of energy from incoming solar radiation to the water molecules and metallic ions and chloride ions takes place?
tallbloke
Here are two links that may help you:-
Seawater Density Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html
Steven K. Baum’s ‘Glossary of Physical Oceanography and Related Disciplines’
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/ocean.html
Consider an open ocean containing three separate water layers.
Layer 1 has a temperature of 0C and a salinity of 34600ppm
Layer 2 has a temperature of 11C and a salinity of 36200ppm
Layer 3 has a temperature of 6C and a salinity of 35100ppm
In what order do the layers occur?
The layers will be ordered top down by density
Layer 3 has a density of 1027.657 kg/m3
Layer 2 has a density of 1027.737 kg/m3
Layer 1 has a density 1027.808 kg/m3
These three example waters are:-
Layer 3 North Atlantic Surface Water (AW)
Layer 2 Mediterranean Water (MW)
Layer 1 Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW)
Layer 2, the warmest layer, derived from the Mediterranean Sea, sits in the middle of our example North Atlantic Ocean stratified water column at depths of around 1000 metres.
Leif,
So you are proposing that the increase seen over the last several decades is the integrated effect of the past 300 years?
I’m proposing (or was it Bill and Steve) that about half of the SST increase the last decades is PDO, the rest mostly GHGs.
The 15*10^22 J increase in OHC since 1960 is not more than 0.18 W imbalance at the surface so not worth mentioning. It’s very hard to heat a 3000 m thick layer of water from the top, because hot water does not sink obviously. The water will not sink before it’s cold enough so I guess all that’s happening as the surface warms is that the circulation slows down a little (and radiation and evaporation increase of course).
In short, I don’t understand why OHC is interesting because It does not tell much about how many Watts reaching the surface. If for instance an increase of 20.1 W down gives 20.0 W up, the imbalance is close to 0 but the surface is a lot warmer.
Bob,
PDO/ENSO: aren’t they just two sides of the same coin? both a result of varying trade winds, which again is the result of – something.