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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I found this comment elsewhere. Is it accurate ?
“A very interesting feature at least of the current solar minimum is the changes in the solar spectrum which occur with large falls in the UV compensated to some degree by increases in the near infra-red.”
It doesn’t accord with Leif’s comments in this thread.
Less UV getting into the oceans and more infrared being neutralised by evaporation with only a small change in TSI would fit my scenario nicely.
Mark T (23:36:17) :
Just a nit, but the divide by 4 isn’t really due to the angle of incidence (though that may have some effect) it is due to the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere: 1 to 4.
Mark
If that was the case, wouldn’t we have to multiply by 4 rather than divide?
Stephen Wilde (01:20:46) :
“Leif Svalgaard.
“There is more in the band 242-310, but not much more [a few tenths of a W/m2″
I think we just have to agree to disagree as to the extent that the climate system may be sensitive to changes on the scale you mentioned over lengthy periods of time.
Stephen, I’ve been trying to explain to Leif for some time that the ocean is much more sensitive to changes in solar activity than a facile and superficial examination of the temperature data reveals. I appreciate Leifs POV that evidence for that has to be presented, and I have amassed quite a bit. Until I am able to quantify them Leif will continue to dismiss them and carry on repeating his line.
This is fair enough in some respects, and we should regard this as a spur to our endeavour, rather than rail against him. It would be nice if there were more hands on the pump handle, but I fear too many take his line at face value and so don’t regard the effort as worthwhile, which is a shame. I wish Leif would acknowledge the possibilities more, but he is an old skool positivist who likes to maintain the illusion of scientific certainty.
From the pdf A Century of Solar Ca II Measurements and Their
Implication for Solar UV Driving of Climate
Peter Foukal · Luca Bertello ·William C. Livingston ·
Alexei A. Pevtsov · Jagdev Singh · Andrey G. Tlatov ·
Roger K. Ulrich
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m95w93084l347746/fulltext.pdf
the Kodaikanal and NSO time series should provide a better
approximation to the bright component contribution to (a) UV variability at wavelengths that
originate in the upper photosphere (including the important range between about 170 and
240 nm mainly responsible for ozone concentration) and to (b) the total solar irradiance.
For the two Kodaikanal- and SP-based
indices the agreement with sunspot number is less satisfactory. Again, as before, cycles 18
and 19 are weaker, and cycle 21 is stronger, than in the sunspot number.
So, the UV effect was stronger in the eighties than the fifites/sixties, and TSI should reflect this too, if the series which relate to chromospheric processes are used in preference to those which show stronger photospheric effects.
This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in TSI than cycle 21.
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
This is strange. Normally, when the argument is put forward that the 90W/m^2 variation in TSI makes a difference to climate, you are quick to point out how much less than 90W/m^2 by the time it hits the surface.
So what? This makes no difference to the argument. And it is easier to simply stick to the TOA value.
“The steric increase [and decline] each year is 7 mm due to the 90 W/m2 annual variation of TSI [leaving the usual factor of 4 and the albedo as a but constant factor], ”
This has a few assumptions built in. Two are:
1)That the relationship between TSI and surface received insolation is linear.
2)The steric increase and decline is equal.
these make no difference as the variation is small.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ocean-Heat-Content-1955-2004.png
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules.
You really shouldn’t make dismissive statements when you are so obviously not informed about these other factors.
These factors are all second order effects and do not alter the main argument.
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules. And it is an anomaly, measured relative to 1971. Perhaps I should have stressed that. The label ‘OHCA’ was meant to convey that: Ocean Heat Content Anomaly.
Mark T (23:36:17) :
Just a nit, but the divide by 4 isn’t really due to the angle of incidence (though that may have some effect) it is due to the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere: 1 to 4.
As long as we are in the nit-department: The ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere is 1 to 2. There is another factor of two because the night side doesn’t get any light, for a total of 4.
Leif Svalgaard (06:02:52) :
tallbloke (23:16:47) :
Shouldn’t the units on the Y axis be (J/S-1)/m^2? 😉
No, as heat content is measured in Joules.
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg. I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
Leif Svalgaard (05:46:55) :
it is easier to simply stick to the TOA value.
these make no difference as the variation is small.
These factors are all second order effects and do not alter the main argument.
Well as you’ve pointed out elsewhere, we live on the surface, not at the toip of the atmosphere, and if you are going to speculate about the effect of TSI on surface temperatures, you should consider the values at the surface, not TOA. Hence my comment about the surface difference being 15W/m^2 annually due to orbital considerations. Now let’s consider that figure in relation to Maksamovitch’s comment about flora having a 45W/m^2 effect; doesn’t sound small or second order anymore does it? Particularly when the variation in the fish stocks indicative of the plankton biomass varies so dramatically over the 60 year oceanic cycle. Less biomass on ocean surface=significantly more penetration of insolation into the ocean.
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
You just did.
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
tallbloke (04:39:14) :
This makes sense to me, but as always, I’d like Leif’s comment. Particularly in view of the fact his TSI reconstruction shows cycles 18/19 as stronger in TSI than cycle 21.
See in the tread where it is more appropriate.
tallbloke (07:11:01) :
Maksamovitch’s comment about flora having a 45W/m^2 effect
That would be a fifth of the total and does not sound credible and might even be a circular argument because the flora depends on the temperature. But instead of jumping all over the place, let’s substantiate that 45 W/m2 effect. He said 45 mW/m2, that is milliWatt, or a thousand times smaller than what you believe. I consider that a second [or third] order effect, but am always willing to learn.
Leif Svalgaard (07:24:53) :
let’s substantiate that 45 W/m2 effect. He said 45 mW/m2, that is milliWatt, or a thousand times smaller than what you believe. I consider that a second [or third] order effect, but am always willing to learn.
Haha!
So am I Leif, so am I. :o)
Still think it’ll be worth a hunt on plankton effects though.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “I’m puzzled by your question. There are lots of sources for an approximate 30 year phase shift in the Pacific and I’ve seen the evidence in your material elsewhere.”
Sorry. I went back and read what context you had written it in. My error.
Aha
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TqqMlOxmfZkC&pg=PA501&lpg=PT499&ots=8sWugIEKPj&dq=%22Holligan%22+%22Do+marine+phytoplankton+influence+global+climate%22+&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22Holligan%22%20%22Do%20marine%20phytoplankton%20influence%20global%20climate%22&f=false
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:48) :
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
Ah well, that’s part of the fun innit? 😉
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
Not at all, just because a subgroup of climatologists say something incorrect, we don’t have to perpetuate the error.
Anyway, enough of that, pretty please will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above. (I think you mentioned the paper to STephen in another context upthread).
I have to go to work soon, you’ll be pleased to hear. 😉
tallbloke (07:32:50) :
So am I Leif, so am I.
But did you? Or do you still think that it is 45W/m2 rather than 0.045W/m2?
tallbloke (07:56:33) :
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Read Kirk’s paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD093iD09p10897.pdf
He is dealing with the color of the water. It has an influence on the vertical distribution, but not on the heat actually absorbed overall.
will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above.
See over in the Livingston thread.
Leif Svalgaard (08:07:06) :
tallbloke (07:32:50) :
So am I Leif, so am I.
But did you? Or do you still think that it is 45W/m2 rather than 0.045W/m2?
I went back and checked Maksamovitch’s post. You were right, I was wrong. That clear enough? 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (08:19:50) :
tallbloke (07:56:33) :
“These processes affect the relationship between phytoplankton productivity … and vertical distribution of solar heating in the water column (Kirk, 1988).”
Not insignificant at all by the look of it.
Read Kirk’s paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD093iD09p10897.pdf
He is dealing with the color of the water. It has an influence on the vertical distribution, but not on the heat actually absorbed overall.
The book has other things to say too, unfortunately, it looks like I’ll have to get a library copy, as the relevant pages are not part of google’s preview.
will you comment on the relative UV and TSI strength in solar cycles 18/19 and 21linked above.
See over in the Livingston thread.
Ta, I’ll take a look later.
tallbloke (08:25:55) :
I went back and checked Maksamovitch’s post. You were right, I was wrong. That clear enough? 🙂
See, you were a victim of Leif’s law: The uncritical acceptance of any data [or misread data] as long as it fits…
Leif Svalgaard (06:13:17) :
As long as we are in the nit-department: The ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a hemisphere is 1 to 2.
Oops, yes.
There is another factor of two because the night side doesn’t get any light, for a total of 4.
Um, that doesn’t make any sense. The term “hemisphere” assumes you are only considering one side to begin with. Now I’m confused.
Mark
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:48) :
tallbloke (06:59:38) :
Quite right, I was just pulling your leg.
Hard to know when and when not…
I agree with Nasif that it is more properly energy content, but we won’t go there.
You just did.
‘Heat Content’ is what it is called in this field, so we must stick to established usage.
It is your personal language. Heat content does not exist, not here, not there. Heat units are Watts; and tallbloke is correct, the units on that graph must be J s^-1/m^2, if you want to include Joules instead Watts.
1 J (energy) is not equal to 1 W (power, heat).
1 J /second (power, heat) is equal to 1 W (power, heat).
1 W (power, heat) is not equal to 1 J (energy)
1 W*s (energy) is equal to 1 J (energy)
CLEAN science.
REPLY: This entire discussion is getting idiotic. I may very well close the thread. Best to stop now.
-Anthony Joules-per-second
Leif,tallbloke
According to Trenberth 1366 W TSI is 161 W absorbed by the surface. This is amplified by GHGs (*3) and maybe *2 by water vapor feedback, and, after a few decades, amplified by snow and ice cover changes. So 1 W TSI increase is perhaps (161/1366)*3*2*1.4=1 W climate effect, after a few decades.
lgl (09:12:03) :
So 1 W TSI increase is perhaps (161/1366)*3*2*1.4=1 W climate effect, after a few decades.
So Temps should trail solar activity by a ‘few decades’. How many is a few? 3? So T should trail solar activity by 30 years. I don’t think it does. And if it did, why all the moaning about solar minimum and instant cooling? Anyway, long-term TSI has not increased 1 W/m2.
For 1890-1950 TSI was 1365.85 and for 1950-2009 1365.94, i.e. only 0.1 W increase.