Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance

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.

Fig. 1. Top-of-atmosphere radiation flux imbalance FTOA implied by the Domingues heat content data. The arrows indicate dates of climate regime changes. These data are annual values, so no solar eccentricity effect is seen.
Fig. 1. Top-of-atmosphere radiation flux imbalance FTOA implied by the Domingues heat content data. The arrows indicate dates of climate regime changes. These data are annual values, so no solar eccentricity effect is seen.

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

436 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
beng
August 17, 2009 11:23 am

**********
frederic (08:17:23) :
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
*********
frederic, I still couldn’t find those papers — sorry.
Your question relates to some earlier questions — like how can 40F water stand between both warmer crust & warmer atmosphere (or top-water if you like). Couple answers — the cold bottom water is continually being renewed to some extent by melting glaciers/ice (especially during the big glacial meltdowns), and that the cold water is in fact very well insulated by the crust below and warm water above. Pure heat conduction thru kilometers of material, even water, is feeble in rate compared to other processes (convection & radiation), especially when there is little mixing/movement of the materials.
So overall the geothermal heat from earth’s molten core is so well insulated by the solidified crust as to be negligible overall compared to solar input. It also explains how the cold deepwater can be “stored” in such a state — good insulation on both sides & continual replacement at some rate.

lgl
August 17, 2009 12:56 pm

Leif,
So Temps should trail solar activity by a ‘few decades’
No, PDO, ENSO and volcanoes rule on shorter than 60 yrs time scales so it’s very difficult to determine the solar influence on a decadal scale. And the ice cover adjustment probably takes centuries so you should start from the Maunder. The TSI can easily have increased 1 W from then to late 20th century, and that’s more than enough to explain the higher ocean heat content if most of it stayed in the ocean, but of course most of the increase reradiates.

August 17, 2009 1:13 pm

lgl (12:56:33) :
so you should start from the Maunder. The TSI can easily have increased 1 W from then to late 20th century, and that’s more than enough to explain the higher ocean heat content if most of it stayed in the ocean
So you are proposing that the increase seen over the last several decades is the integrated effect of the past 300 years? I don’t think you’ll have many takers on that one, and you’ll have a hard time convincing the ‘coolers’ out there that reduced solar activity the last cycle has [or will] undone a significant fraction of the heating.
The real issue is what makes the heat stay in the oceans. Try to find some calculations of the cooling time of a 3000 m thick layer of water.

Mark T
August 17, 2009 2:15 pm

Leif: I figured out what was meant, which I already knew, just forgot! 🙂
Mark

August 17, 2009 3:16 pm

lgl: You wrote, “No, PDO, ENSO and volcanoes rule on shorter than 60 yrs time scales so it’s very difficult to determine the solar influence on a decadal scale.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO, so it’s volcanoes and ENSO rule, in that order.

Philip Mulholland
August 17, 2009 3:45 pm

tallbloke (01:15:28) :
Can you see a way any of those three might be able to transfer energy downwards to depths of 700m or more, well beyond the 70m or so that is the limit of where the transfer of energy from incoming solar radiation to the water molecules and metallic ions and chloride ions takes place?
tallbloke
Here are two links that may help you:-
Seawater Density Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html
Steven K. Baum’s ‘Glossary of Physical Oceanography and Related Disciplines’
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/ocean.html
Consider an open ocean containing three separate water layers.
Layer 1 has a temperature of 0C and a salinity of 34600ppm
Layer 2 has a temperature of 11C and a salinity of 36200ppm
Layer 3 has a temperature of 6C and a salinity of 35100ppm
In what order do the layers occur?
The layers will be ordered top down by density
Layer 3 has a density of 1027.657 kg/m3
Layer 2 has a density of 1027.737 kg/m3
Layer 1 has a density 1027.808 kg/m3
These three example waters are:-
Layer 3 North Atlantic Surface Water (AW)
Layer 2 Mediterranean Water (MW)
Layer 1 Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW)
Layer 2, the warmest layer, derived from the Mediterranean Sea, sits in the middle of our example North Atlantic Ocean stratified water column at depths of around 1000 metres.

lgl
August 17, 2009 3:53 pm

Leif,
So you are proposing that the increase seen over the last several decades is the integrated effect of the past 300 years?
I’m proposing (or was it Bill and Steve) that about half of the SST increase the last decades is PDO, the rest mostly GHGs.
The 15*10^22 J increase in OHC since 1960 is not more than 0.18 W imbalance at the surface so not worth mentioning. It’s very hard to heat a 3000 m thick layer of water from the top, because hot water does not sink obviously. The water will not sink before it’s cold enough so I guess all that’s happening as the surface warms is that the circulation slows down a little (and radiation and evaporation increase of course).
In short, I don’t understand why OHC is interesting because It does not tell much about how many Watts reaching the surface. If for instance an increase of 20.1 W down gives 20.0 W up, the imbalance is close to 0 but the surface is a lot warmer.

lgl
August 18, 2009 5:53 am

Bob,
PDO/ENSO: aren’t they just two sides of the same coin? both a result of varying trade winds, which again is the result of – something.

1 16 17 18
Verified by MonsterInsights