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.
“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.