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.
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