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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.