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.
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.