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.
Mike Ramsey (16:35:44)
Just playing around with my editor. That was a cool effect.
JimB (15:57:13) :
O/T, but very important.
Per U.N.; we now have only 4 months to save the planet:
That’s the same time as the Copenhagen summit. Huh, what a funny coincidence.
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
DaveE.
“”” Pompous Git (14:05:26) :
Mark T (12:12:30) :
“From the wiki:
heat is the process of energy transfer from one body or system due to thermal contact
which implies that Nasif’s usage is correct, i.e., heat is more correctly described as the transfer of energy, not energy itself.” “””
And Wiki is the final arbiter of all things scientific ?
Notice what they say; “heat is the process…” clearly their idea of heat is that it is a verb. A heats B. I don’t have a problem with that; I prefere heat as averb, and not a noun; but common scientific usage does in fact use “heat” as a noun; but it also makes it clear that what we call heat (noun) is only the manifestation of that form of mechanical Kinetic Energy that is contained in real matter particles by virtue of their mass, and their random statistical velocities. My Physics Handbook simply says that Heat is a form of energy. Doesn’t say a word about heat being the transfer of energy. It also says the Symbol for heat is (Q), and the unit is (J) Joule. It further says that Q is the integral of CdT, where C is heat capacity; which is further defined as a MATERIAL property. I do believe I already wrote that heat and temperature have no meaning in the absence of materials.
As a further note the Handbook says that “Heat cannot be converted completely into mechanical or electrical energy.” This it cites as one form of declaration of the SECOND LAW of thermodynamics. It is not inconsequential since electric energy and mechanical energy can be converted completely into heat. This is an acknowledgement that the physical manifestation of heat is always in the form of a statistical distributiuon of thermal energy among particles, and it is inherently impossible to get them all to act in concert to perform mechanical work at 100% conversion.
Finally, we can cite the equation of state of an ideal gas: pV = NkT, where (p) and (V) are pressure and Volume respectively, (N) is the number of particles, (T) the temperature and (k) is Boltzmann’s constant.
The mean kinetic energy per particle is simply 3kT/2 presuming that the particle energy distribution follows the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution which is true for an ideal gas.
These relations are the means by which the mechanical kinetic energy of particulate matter is related to Temperature; which thereby connects matter, heat (energy) and Temperature inextricably.
George
There are reasons for how oceans distribute heat and release it, SST rising and falling and oscillating temperatures at the surface and atmosphere. One would think a ball spinning 1000+ mph at the equator may have something to do with it, maybe gravity too?
Heat storage and heat “in the pipeline” of the oceans are not one in the same.
See:
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/09/further-comments-regarding-the-concept-heating-in-the-pipeline/
It appears that OHC gain/loss during ENSO events may not behave uniformly.
[b]Absence of propagating upper ocean heat content anomalies in the eastern tropical South Pacific after ENSO events[/b]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL033065.shtml
Okay then, what is the scientific definition of “love”? Is love a scientific term for a physio-psychological measurable response or is it something more commonly known as romantic human love? If love is only known in the general public as romantic feelings, should we not then use the term “love” when we are talking about the physio-psychological manifestation? Is there a better word for the measurable response? Should we start arguing over when to use this word and when not too? This is the same argument you are having about “heat” and “energy”. Thank goodness no one has come up with a different term for love.
In order to reach a broader English-speaking audience than those who are narrowly focused on your topic, you use terms within that language that impart a general understanding within the native speakers that would read your article. It gets dicey when people of different languages try to understand your sense. Could that be the jist of your argument?
Let’s do another example. What is “snow”? In the English language we have one word for it. English speakers readily understand the meaning, even though we have several forms of snow. But we only use one word and its the CONTEXT that meaning is derived from. Eskimos have many words for snow (or so I am told). They don’t need additional context because they use the correct term for the kind of snow that is on the ground. Different languages can be used in different ways when engaged in technical writing.
So too the word “heat”. In the English language and in the broader audience the author hopes to reach, the use of the word “heat” is acceptable. It is the context where meaning is imparted. Technical writing walks a tightrope between correct usage, and common usage. Go too far either way and you will lose your audience in a haze of unknown jargon or fits of laughter over your juvenile attempt at scientific “prose”.
DaveE (16:39:26) :
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
Oceanic energy comprises more than just heat, it also includes kinetic energy,
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
Just a curiosity question here, how much “heating” of the oceans is caused by friction? I used to work on an abalone farm, and noticed that from the intakes to the plant (300m) youd pick up about one degree C. this is with big single stage pumps, so relatively low pressure, but high volume. So most o that is probably just from line friction. But im assuming here that kinetic energy is still transferred to heat from molecular friction? Maybe a dumb question, but just a curiosity.
DaveE (16:39:26) :
Robert Wood (16:04:32) :
So I guess that what you really mean is that, “heating the oceans” does more than just increase its temperature!
DaveE.
The wind and the currents store kinetic energy. But the ultimate source of almost all of that energy is the Sun. The earth’s internal heat also supplies some of that energy. Did I hear tsunami?
“”” Kevin Kilty (13:14:37) :
George thinks I am a student of Nasif, “””
George thinks no such thing; and has never said or hinted at any such thing.
So please read what I say, and not what you think I mean; I tend to say exactly what I mean; being somewhat conversant in the English language; although admittedly less so in the American form of it; but even there I do try.
My mention of a Mentor was, if you read my post again a reference to a (presumably) eminent but late scientist that Nasif cited as an authority on these subjects. I accept Nasif’s citing of this dearly departed chap as an authority; no reason I shouldn’t although he is unknown to me; which doesn’t count ofr much. Most scientists, I do not know.
I grouped you and Nasif, since you both made essentially the same claim that heat is only energy in transit, or words to that effect; whereas if anything is true, it is exactly the opposite; it is only heat when it is not in transit; well other than the very short time exchange of kinetic energies between heated particles in collisions.
George
For a good laugh, see here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm
“Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming”
–
“One key finding in the study is that it is not the warming of the ocean alone that reduces cloudiness — a weakening of the trade winds also appears to play a critical role.”
Have they perhaps [very belatedly] clued-in to the existence of the PWP?
With the flawed either/or logic and the untenable statistical-extrapolation – yikes. (Have they even taken Stat 101? Perhaps they have forgotten it’s lessons…)
Shouldn’t these people realize that if T, cloud, & PPT were the same thing, PCA & factor analysis would have told us that many decades ago?
Maybe they would clue in if the hydrologic cycle hit them in the head with a hammer (or a ceiling)? On the other hand: Their funding is secure because they are following the storyline the funding agencies like.
On the upside: At least clouds are on the alarmist-radar now.
With such slow steps, they’ll be able to time the sealing of their own coffins with the (career-end) conclusion of their need for funding.
Leif Svalgaard (16:18:55) :
Nasif Nahle (14:53:01) :
I said that I won’t write on this issue again
Well, stop then. I have not made any such declaration.
I won’t stop as long as you continue mentioning my name on trying to hide your obvious confusion on thermodynamics.
I am not trying to convince anyone on anything. I am only defining the concepts heat, internal energy, kinetic energy and their corresponding units in the way that REAL physics explains them. I cannot say there are no joules in heat simple and simply because heat is energy in transit. However, when I express that amount of energy flowing between two thermodynamic systems, I cannot express it in Joules, but in Joules/second or Watts. If I expressed them simply as Joules or Watt*second, I would not be talking about heat, but about load of energy.
Consequently, given that the authors of this paper wrote “Heat Content in Oceans”, they are misusing the scientific concepts.
I don’t care if they are wrong or not, that’s their problem.
Nevertheless, I very do care on the decomposition of science to the extreme of interchanging concepts as if they were marbles. I cannot say the elephants are dogs only because elephants and dogs are formed by cells.
In the very moment that the heat (the energy in transit) crosses the boundaries into the second system, it stops being heat; it is no more heat because it can be absorbed by the second system and, probably, stored, so it accounts, from that moment on, for the internal energy of the second system.
Heat is a process quantity. To say that process quantities can be stored by a thermodynamic system is claptrap.
Mike, you silly. Short Wave Radiation (SWR) IS the Sun! You know, Sunbeams! Absolutely no one here thinks the Sun is not involved. It just isn’t the source of the HUGE variations in weather and climate we get from Ol’Sol. Also, the authors contend that both delivery and “use” is quick, IE within months.
So what or where is the source of variation? That would be Earth’s atmosphere for SWR, Earth’s use of the heat energy obtained from SWR, and Earth’s way of getting rid of the excess. AGW’ers are concerned about whether or not Earth can get rid of excess heat because of a thickening blanket of greenhouse gases. However, excess heat as outgoing longwave radiation is reaching satellite sensors at the outer edge of the atmosphere, seemingly without even stopping to pay a toll booth charge through the blanket. In technical terms, there seems to be no CO2-related diminution of OLR. The Earth is breathing just fine.
Curiousgeorge (10:20:50) wrote:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is some heating as a result of volcanic activity – black smokers, island building, and the like. I’d be curious to know if anyone has a clue about that. Is it significant enough to take into account?”
Here’s a recent article by Emile-Geay and Madec on the role of geothermal heating in the deep oceans. The authors find the mixing effect underestimated and of the same order of magnitude of mixing due to diapycnal (density) differences. They write, for example:
“Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat transport increases by ~10% in the Southern Ocean. The three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.”
Geothermal heating, diapycnal mixing and the abyssal circulation
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
George E. Smith (16:57:53) :
I grouped you and Nasif, since you both made essentially the same claim that heat is only energy in transit, or words to that effect; whereas if anything is true, it is exactly the opposite; it is only heat when it is not in transit; well other than the very short time exchange of kinetic energies between heated particles in collisions.
Again, it’s not my claim, or “my” mentor’s claim (who, by the way, is Hendrick C. Van Ness), but of ALL physicists on this world, except two of them: you and Leif by saying that heat is the same as kinetic energy.
George, in good terms, I invite you to read any book on heat transfer and/or thermodynamics, and/or basic physics, and find if the concept “heat” is different from the one I have given here.
If you look into this matter, you’ll see that the term “heat” is being used incorrectly in climate science and, perhaps, in solar physics.
Mike Ramsey (16:57:53) :
Lets not forget gravity, the tides are a kinda noticeable example of this, and it moves a lot o water up and down on a daily basis, and would id imagine have a greater effect on the oceans as a whole(depths included) than the surface conditions. Even if it is a relatively uniform mechanism… its still variable.
George E. Smith (16:44:08) :
George, you go!
Heat is really energy associated with the motion and positions of the molecules in a material.
Just as mechanical energy can be transformed into heat energy, heat energy can be transformed into radiant energy (electromagnetic waves for the classically minded). Heat energy can be also be transformed into latent heat energy, say via evaporation. Clouds are the earth’s air conditioners, transporting heat to the cloud tops where when the water vapor condenses it releases all that heat which then radiates out into outer space.
“” tallbloke (05:12:16)
… stored down to 700m…
“”
I have some basic problems with that.
1. h2o reaches maximum density just a few degrees over freezing. Salt water is slightly lower in freezing point than fresh water. I would not expect warmer water to sink given the temperatures involved above 700meters. The only way you’re going to get more density is by evaporating h2o and increasing the salinity. Evaporating water takes lots more energy than would be associated with a modest temperature increase. In fact, it’s a lot more than than a 100C temperature increase for a given mass of h2o.
2. Most power in sunlight is in the IR and uV. Less than half is in the visible. The IR is blocked in millimeters or within in a millimeter and the red in a few meters. There is very little light left reaching down to 700m and most of the energy is deposited well before that distance. The deepest I’ve been is 20m of fresh water and it might as well have been night time for all I could see at that depth. AGW increases have to be totally in the far IR range anyway.
Consequences of these two items are the opposite of boiling water in a pot on the stove. There’s no mechanism for the top heated water to have convection downward and there’s no mechanism for the energy to be radiated downward. Whatever conduction might exist will be hampered by the rise in buoyancy of the water due to the rise in temperature.
The final facet of this ocean heat sink problem with longer time frames is that rather slow time frames mean rather small flow rates of energy. As has been mentioned here, a few miles of dirt and rock are all that exist between a quite temperature environment averaging around 288K from the temperatures within the Earth that are approximately the same as the photosphere (visible ‘surface’) of the Sun. On average, that heat flow due to a 5000K + temperature difference is inconsequential compared to the surface heat flow in and out from the Earth’s surface that happen on a daily basis.
I botched the copy and paste of the abstract in my post above, hopefully this will make more sense.
Abstract. The dynamical role of geothermal heating in abyssal circulation is reconsidered using three independent arguments. First, we show that a uniform geothermal heat
flux close to the observed average (86.4 mW m−2 ) supplies
as much heat to near-bottom water as a diapycnal mixing rate of ∼10−4 m2 s−1 – the canonical value thought to be
responsible for the magnitude of the present-day abyssal cir- culation. This parity raises the possibility that geothermal heating could have a dynamical impact of the same order. Second, we estimate the magnitude of geothermally-induced circulation with the density-binning method (Walin, 1982), applied to the observed thermohaline structure of Levitus (1998). The method also allows to investigate the effect of
onto the bottom, thereby altering the density structure that supports a geothermal circulation. For strong vertical mix- ing rates, geothermal heating enhances the AABW cell by
about 15% (2.5 Sv) and heats up the last 2000 m by ∼0.15◦C,
reaching a maximum of by 0.3◦C in the deep North Pacific.
Prescribing a realistic spatial distribution of the heat flux acts to enhance this temperature rise at mid-depth and reduce it at great depth, producing a more modest increase in overturning than in the uniform case. In all cases, however, poleward heat
transport increases by ∼10% in the Southern Ocean. The
three approaches converge to the conclusion that geothermal heating is an important actor of abyssal dynamics, and should no longer be neglected in oceanographic studies.
realistic spatial variations of the flux obtained from heatflow
measurements and classical theories of lithospheric cooling.
It is found that a uniform heatflow forces a transformation of ∼6 Sv at σ4 =45.90, which is of the same order as cur-
rent best estimates of AABW circulation. This transforma- tion can be thought of as the geothermal circulation in the absence of mixing and is very similar for a realistic heat- flow, albeit shifted towards slightly lighter density classes. Third, we use a general ocean circulation model in global configuration to perform three sets of experiments: (1) a ther- mally homogenous abyssal ocean with and without uniform geothermal heating; (2) a more stratified abyssal ocean sub- ject to (i) no geothermal heating, (ii) a constant heat flux of
86.4 mW m−2 , (iii) a realistic, spatially varying heat flux of
identical global average; (3) experiments (i) and (iii) with en- hanced vertical mixing at depth. Geothermal heating and di- apycnal mixing are found to interact non-linearly through the density field, with geothermal heating eroding the deep strat- ification supporting a downward diffusive flux, while diapy- cnal mixing acts to map near-surface temperature gradients
“Just a curiosity question here, how much “heating” of the oceans is caused by friction?”
On a related note, there is a lot of mixing (which takes terawatts for all the oceans) done by animals.
Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean?
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/1501/1/JMR_64_541.pdf
These processes are important for maintaining the MOC (meridional overturning circulation) which is part of the ocean’s circulation system that returns cold deep water from the Arctic southward across the Equator. The water eventually upwells, mostly around the Antarctic.
For the system to continue its circulation there must be a driver for the upwelling and it turns out the main driver is turbulent mixing. It has been calculated that approximately 2 T watts are required annually to drive the system. Usually it is assumed that tides and winds each contribute about half of the necessary energy.
More recent work on the same topic:
Jellyfish And Other Small Sea Creatures Linked To Large-scale Ocean Mixing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729132107.htm
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2009) — Using a combination of theoretical modeling, energy calculations, and field observations, researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have for the first time described a mechanism that explains how some of the ocean’s tiniest swimming animals can have a huge impact on large-scale ocean mixing….
“There are enough of these animals in the ocean,” he notes, “that, on the whole, the global power input from this process is as much as a trillion watts of energy—comparable to that of wind forcing and tidal forcing.”
cancel that last try
Abstract. The dynamical role of geothermal heating in abyssal circulation is reconsidered using three independent arguments. First, we show that a uniform geothermal heat
flux close to the observed average (86.4 mW m−2 ) supplies
as much heat to near-bottom water as a diapycnal mixing rate of ∼10−4 m2 s−1 – the canonical value thought to be
responsible for the magnitude of the present-day abyssal cir- culation. This parity raises the possibility that geothermal heating could have a dynamical impact of the same order. Second, we estimate the magnitude of geothermally-induced circulation with the density-binning method (Walin, 1982), applied to the observed thermohaline structure of Levitus (1998). The method also allows to investigate the effect ofmeasurements and classical theories of lithospheric cooling.
realistic spatial variations of the flux obtained from heatflow
It is found that a uniform heatflow forces a transformation of ∼6 Sv at σ4 =45.90, which is of the same order as cur-
rent best estimates of AABW circulation. This transforma- tion can be thought of as the geothermal circulation in the absence of mixing and is very similar for a realistic heat- flow, albeit shifted towards slightly lighter density classes. Third, we use a general ocean circulation model in global configuration to perform three sets of experiments: (1) a ther- mally homogenous abyssal ocean with and without uniform geothermal heating; (2) a more stratified abyssal ocean sub- ject to (i) no geothermal heating, (ii) a constant heat flux of
86.4 mW m−2 , (iii) a realistic, spatially varying heat flux of
identical global average; (3) experiments (i) and (iii) with en- hanced vertical mixing at depth. Geothermal heating and di- apycnal mixing are found to interact non-linearly through the density field, with geothermal heating eroding the deep strat- ification supporting a downward diffusive flux, while diapy- cnal mixing acts to map near-surface temperature gradients
I in all honesty (not sarcasm) look forward to reading Dr. Douglas’ entire paper when it is published; this is of major interest to me and from what I do read based upon Tsonis and Swanson as well, seems very reasonable and done in the spirit of the scientific method, but I will refrain any judgement or claims until after I read it a few times first. Swanson and Tsonis did some compeling work in their last paper.
George E. Smith (16:44:08) :
And Wiki is the final arbiter of all things scientific ?
No, just the easiest reference to get to and likely the most common definition.
Notice what they say; “heat is the process…” clearly their idea of heat is that it is a verb.
Technically, a “process” is a noun, or rather “the process of energy transfer” is a object, i.e., it is a noun substitute. But either way, yes, they are describing “heat” as something that happens or gets done rather than something that is or exists.
Hey, it is all semantic and in general, everyone knows what is meant so it’s not that big of a deal. I think thermodynamics people tend towards Nasif’s usage, which is what I was also taught.
As for incorrect usage of the term feedback, the “climate science” usage is inexcusably bad and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the underlying concepts of control theory. Not that the stuff is simple, but it is generally considered core knowledge, i.e., one of the basics, for any engineering curriculum.
Mark
Pamela (16:53:58)
Well stated! I have always had a high opinion of Oregon State U alums who were from the Wallowas.
If we are fortunate, Roger Pielke, Sr. will soon offer some opinions on this paper in his Climate Science blog, the paper which some here choose not to discuss.
I just had a look at this:
Clement, A.C.; Burgman, R; & Norris, J.R. (2009). Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback. Science 325, 460-464.
They show insufficient respect for climate regime shifts and seem all-too-willing to embrace CO2 as a monotonic driver of future cloud cover. Furthermore, they point to computer fantasies as the way to gain more insight. (wtf??)
Pamela Gray (17:07:26) :
I was aware its a bit off topic, i was just got to thinking about about circulation in general, and just got too wondering 😉