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 (17:29:08):
George E. Smith (16:44:08):
Please, don’t get offended. Jerry D. Wilson explains very well what is heat in Chapter 11, page 360-382 of his book:
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994.
Some other references:
H. C. Van Ness. Understanding Thermodynamics; PAGE 17.
Thomas Engel and Philip Reid. Thermodynamics, Statistical, Thermodynamics & Kinetics. 2006. Pearson Education, Inc. PAGE 16.
Potter, Merle C. and Somerton, Craig W. Thermodynamics for Engineers. Mc Graw-Hill. 1993. PAGE 40.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/heat.html#c1
Sorry didn’t mean to stutter!
By the way, I haven’t really read the paper posted here; so nothing I have put on the pile relates in any way to that paper. But I’ll get around to looking at what the author’s have taken the trouble to put here for us to digest; so just in case they may think I have been jumping on them I haven’t. I at least read what people write before I try to comment on what it is they have said.
Anthony just keeps feeding us interesting pieces at such a rate, it is hard to keep up with, and a lot of these threads develop a complete life of their own unrelated to their original topic.
George
“”” DB2 (17:43:18) :
“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.” “””
Watts are units of Power; not Energy; which as Leif has pointed out is measured in Joules.
It is hard to make rational arguments while using incorrect units.
For example stating the cost of solar energy in dollars per Watt; will just cause confusion. It will also underestimate that cost by typically confining the accounting to just the capital cost of the peak power capability of the system; but ignore the continuous running costs of maintenance and other fators; whcih typically affect the cost of available energy.
As for the above concept of the energy involved with swimming animals; I would submit that such work performed by these creatures is uncontrollable, and as such is akin to the random motions of atoms and molecules in thermal processes.
But bear in mind that those animals, and their heat producing thrashings around; are a product of the solar energy that entered the ocean; not to mention the CO2 that disssolved in the ocean and supplies important materials to these life forms.
So these critters are simply a process in the conversion of solar radiation energy into heat energy that is stored in the oceans.
I would advise against investing in any “green free renewable energy” program that plans to light Los Angeles from the combined efforts of phytoplankton off the LA coast.
“”” cba (17:32:12) :
“” 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. “””
What you state is true only of fresh water. Sea water which has an average salinity of around 3.5% exhibits NO maximum density before it freezes; for salinity of 2.47% or higher; where it freezes somewhere around -2.5 degC.
So salt water continues to get denser as it cools; so it does not exhibit the “turnover” phenomenon that occurs in fresh water lakes.
George
Re: DB2 (17:43:18)
Interesting – particularly since biological processes vary by orders of magnitude (in response to things like climate).
Watts are units of Power; not Energy; which as Leif has pointed out is measured in Joules.
Uh, units of power are time-varying units of energy, i.e., Joules per second. In other words, a Watt is a measure of the rate of energy transfer. Looking back at the first definition of heat… ahem.
Mark
Actually, DB2 used both “power” and “energy” in the same sentence for the same thing. Ok, strange. 😉
Mark
“Sea water which has an average salinity of around 3.5% exhibits NO maximum density before it freezes; for salinity of 2.47% or higher; where it freezes somewhere around -2.5 degC.”
Hmm if seawater density continued going up all the way to freezing then at the bottom of the ocean pressure alone would cause freezing. Salinity might lower the temp. at which density is at a minimum but the minimum must be there or the oceans would be solid at a few hundred feet.
Bollo density maximum in above post!
“”” Nasif Nahle (17:18:47) :
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. “””
Nasif; please accept that my reference to Van Ness as “your mentor” carried no derogatory connotations; I’ll accept your word that he is (was) an author of repute; I never questioned that and it was easier to make such a reference, than to dig back though this pile to locate his name.
The various citations I posted here somewhere as from a “Physics Handbook” specifically come from “Handbook of Physics” edited by Walter Beneson, John W. Harris, Horst Stocker, and Holger Lutz which dates from 2002, and I believe is translated from a German original. I carefully chose to purchase this specific handbook, because it is a concise and highly pedantic treatise on the whole gamut of Physics; albeit with only brief coverage of any specific aspect of Physics.
Wikipedia may be the people’s encyclopedia of whatever; I use it myself; but I do not rely on it for definitiver work.
Benenson et al is rather rare in that it gives the specific exact values of the fundamental parameters of black body radiation in terms of fundamental physical constants; rather than giving some numerical value; whose accuracy will always be subject to suspicion. Knowing that C1 and C2, the two radiation constants, as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (sigma) have exact values in terms of fundamnetal constants, and are NOT the result of some statistical curve fitting process beloved of climate scientists, was a clincher in deciding to purchase this handbook to keep at my desk for reference.
The Planck derivation of the spectrum of blackbody radiation is one of the crown jewels of modern physics, and students need to know that it was a theoretical derivation from fundamentals, and not an exercise in statistical mechanics.
The Raleigh-Jeans, and Wien forms of the black body spectrum each had fatal errors that made both of them useless over wide spectral ranges; the so-called “Ultra-violet catastrophe” in the case of the Raleigh-Jeans fromula which predicts infinite spectral emittance at zero wavelength.
Scientists have to be especially careful (and pedantic) when using technical terms; that have specific scientific meanings as well as everyday colloquial meanings to lay persons.
The use of “brightness” for example instead of “Luminance” in discussions of photometric properties of light. Lay folks associate “brightness” with light bulbs and think it is synonymous with “candle power” or some other “scientific slang” usage.
Re: DB2 (17:43:18)
Figure 2 (lower panel) in the link you provide to…
Dewar, W.K.; Bingham, R.J.; Iverson, R.L.; Nowacek, D.P.; St. Laurent, L.C.; & Wiebe, P.H. (2006). Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean? Journal of Marine Research 64, 541-561.
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/1501/1/JMR_64_541.pdf
…provides a clue as to why rate of change of CO2 in the far south is in anti-phase with most of the world.
Plants, insects, & soil organisms (& humans) have a profound impact on the physical properties of soils (& the structure of the land surface). It is interesting that it has taken us so long to get around to opening our minds to what life is doing to modify ocean structure — more evidence that we have been living in times when “inconvenient” unconventional thinking is (basically) prohibited, even when it is sensible.
I am not sure on this but, did Dr. Douglas and Dr. Knox consider kinetic energy into the total available energy in the oceans in their analysis?
regarding heat; just read Peter Atkins textbooks on Physical Chemistry; he is the authority on this. You guys are overcomplicating what heat is; it is merely kinetic energy in total which transfers energy due to temperature difference, whereas temperature is the average kinetic energy…Atkins would say that heat is not really energy at all, but energy trnasfer due to temperature difference alone; both statements are made by phsysicists and chemists/Physical chemists, and are slightly different ways of viewing the same thing.
The numbers given in Dewar Et Al. (2006) do more to pose a question than provide any answer. They estimate (very roughly) an energy input due to swimming processes, and it is could be of useful magnitude, but even if you accept their ranges, you have to consider whether all this “stirring” is really diapycnal or not.
Mark T (17:51:03) :
But either way, yes, they are describing “heat” as something that happens or gets done rather than something that is or exists.
Yet all definitions of units state that there is such a thing as ‘amount [or quantity] of heat’ which is measured in Joule, e.g. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
“energy, work, quantity of heat: joule”
You can only have an amount or a quantity of something that is or exists. So ‘ocean heat content’ is something that has existence [and we all know that it is the kinetic energy of the random, chaotic movements of the molecules] and can be stored and transported around by bodily movements, like ocean currents and convection.
And for a solar physics application: there is coronal heating and heat is deposited in the coronal material. Yet the heating is not a process of transferring heat from a warmer to a colder body, because there is no warmer body around. The refusal of accepting this, set back coronal physics 50 years, because it was held to be impossible that the Sun [at 6000K] could heat the corona [at 1,000,000K]. Perhaps one could still maintain that there therefore is no coronal heating taking place, but that seems extreme and useless to me.
Jacob Mack (19:30:47) :
regarding heat; just read Peter Atkins textbooks on Physical Chemistry; he is the authority on this. You guys are overcomplicating what heat is; it is merely kinetic energy in total which transfers energy due to temperature difference, whereas temperature is the average kinetic energy…Atkins would say that heat is not really energy at all, but energy trnasfer due to temperature difference alone; both statements are made by phsysicists and chemists/Physical chemists, and are slightly different ways of viewing the same thing.
I have not conflict with Atkins’ description because he’s referring to energy transferred from one system to another system due to differences of temperature. It is true for any form of available energy (gravitational potential energy, or kinetic energy or internal energy) in the thermodynamic system that is being transferred in a given moment.
From Douglas’ and Knox’s article, I can deduce that they consider any amount from the total available energy can be transferred to the atmosphere or to the subjacent layers of the oceans and ground (one fifth from the total energy absorbed is transferred to the underlying surface). On the latter case, that is, when the energy is transferred to the underlying surface of the oceans and ground, the lag time between the event of absorption and storage of energy, and the dissipation of the stored energy, considering that “lag time” is a function of dissipation, is prolonged for an undetermined period of time. Oceans are highly efficient collectors of energy.
The phenomenon mentioned in the above paragraph is true for oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
The important thing on this conundrum of total available energy content in the oceans is to know how long the energy stored is maintained into the system. -we know that the available energy will be dissipated latter towards the atmosphere and other systems and to the outer space; however, we don’t know exactly when it will happen.
Nasif Nahle (19:20:31) :
I am not sure on this but, did Dr. Douglas and Dr. Knox consider kinetic energy into the total available energy in the oceans in their analysis?
They calculate the ocean heat content from the measured temperature profile.
Nasif Nahle (20:32:44) :
oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
You must mean their ‘high energy in transit capacity’.
Nasif,
thank you for your thorough response…much appreciated.
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:56) :
They calculate the ocean heat content from the measured temperature profile.
If they are calculating the ocean heat content, they are calculating nothing; consequently, they are disregarding the important portion of the total available energy into the system “oceans”. The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
Nasif Nahle (20:59:26) :
The kinetic energy of the oceans is very small in comparison with the total available energy content in the oceans.
The ocean heat content is the kinetic energy of the random, chaotic movements of the molecules. Now, heat is the ultimate sink of available energy, and is not available to do work.
For me the best comment so far on this topic came from Anthony.
I could visualize this happening with the oceans due to cloud cover modulation. Example: due to a forcing/change which I’ll leave undefined, we see less cloud cover around the tropics, and the “stove” goes from medium to high. Cloud cover returns, and we have an additional insulating blanket for the oceanic pot of water in addition to the longer discharge curve, while the stove goes back to medium or medium-low. It isn’t hard to envision some longer discharge periods there.
It very nicely explains the temperature trend that has been occurring and suggests the real cooling is still coming.
The current Landscheidt/Jose minimum will solve so many unanswered questions.
Leif Svalgaard (20:39:02) :
Nasif Nahle (20:32:44) :
oceans and clay due to their high heat capacity, which is 4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for the water, and 1.8 x 10^6 J/m^3 K for dry clay.
You must mean their ‘high energy in transit capacity’.
Wow! At last, you’re understanding the concept. Indeed, heat capacity describes the ability of a system to absorb energy in transit (heat) and store it like internal energy. The formula is quite simple: ρC = ρ (Cp)
I have to tell you, if you don’t know it, that heat capacity is not the same than specific heat capacity, OK?