Related to this story: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation Time Series from the University of Washington, seen below. Emphasis points mine. h/t to WUWT reader Richard Heg. – Anthony
Monthly Values for the PDO Index, January 1900 to September 2008. Positive (red) index values indicate a warm phase PDO; negative (blue) index values indicate a cool phase PDO. While short-term flips in PDO phases do occur, evaluation of 20th century instrumental records has shown that PDO phases generally persist for 20-30 years, as indicated in this figure. To download the data, see Nate Mantua’s PDO page.
Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies
Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.
These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.
The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.
The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.
“These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. “One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”
Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.
The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.
The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
“An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. “The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.
The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.
Dave Andrews (12:30:56)
The timing and mechanics of any energy transfer from deep ocean volcanic activity to the surface is problematic.
The oceans are deep, dense and cold in the main.
I expect that whatever happens at the bottom becomes pretty diffuse before it can affect the surface and is much delayed.
For that reason I prefer the idea that undersea volcanic activity can only have a surface effect in two ways:
1) By setting a minimum temperature below which the water at the bottom of the oceans cannot descend it sets the starting point for the temperature gradient all the way to the surface.
2) Nothing in nature is invariable so over time any variations in energy emanating from the mantle are likely to reach the surface in irregular waves or pulses. I find it easy to accept that such irregularity would create or at least contribute to irregularities at the surface so it may be a contributing factor along with solar variability to the phase switching we see in oceanic energy release.
So far I have avoided too much involvement in trying to work out the mechanics of the oceanic phase changes but now that my observations concerning events in the air are slowly being validated by real world events and supported by papers such as the one that started this thread I do find myself concentrating more on that aspect.
Tallbloke made an interesting suggestion that the phase switch in the Pacific always comes at the solar minimum on every third cycle and I would support more investigation of that. I haven’t yet checked it out myself.
Geoff Sharp (04:12:09) “Scafetta in his recent work noted that the AMO & PDO work on a 60 year cycle that correlates with the 60 year cycles of the Sun’s orbit. What is also interesting is looking at the amplitude of the PDO….it also matches the amplitude of the Suns distance from the centre of the solar system.”
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta.jpg
–
Geoff, this is interesting, but can you clarify your comments or provide a link? The graph to which you linked shows nothing surprising, so I am guessing your comments are largely motivated by something else (maybe a different graph)? In particular, I am curious to know exactly how you are getting the notion that: “the amplitude of the PDO […] matches the amplitude of the Suns distance from the centre of the solar system”.
.Hansford (08:16:10) :
lgl (01:10:34) “Why did the sea level rise also betweeen 1940 and 1970 if the net radiation was from the ocean? Can’t imagine it was due to melting ice.”
————————————————————
Probably more to do with bad siting of the measuring equipment…. The baseline for the East Coast of Australian is situated on a Jetty…. Not very accurate…. the jetty can sink… The land can subside…. etc.
I had a link to a picture and an article on it…. But I can’t find it now.
In addition to thermal effects, the ocean height is partially dynamic–i.e. the result of currents and gyres. Case in point–the “island” of plastic trash in the Pacific is probably a dynamic feature. So loss or gain of heat, and mass, is only part of the story. There should be an “island” of trash in the Atlantic as well.
I’m glad to see geothermal flux mentioned. It has been written off, much like solar cycles, as significant components of global heating by physicists on both side of the debate. Check this out and see what you think – the anomalies are sure in the right places. Scroll down three or four clicks to see the global anomalies:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
I am very glad that they are considering the thermal potential of the subsurface. Not having special expertise on it, or even done specific literature searches, its my speculation that while geothermal heat flow may typically be very small, it is quite possible, probable even, that there are substantial zones and lineaments where very high heat flows may be focussed at the ocean bed, such as along active volcanic spreading zones and transcurrent faults, and associated more extensive regions of thin newly formed basaltic oceanic basement with higher than average geothermal gradients and heat flow. In continental margin areas with thick sedimentary cover, there are likely local areas of biogenic and deeper migrating gas/oil seepage and expelled hot connate water. Sedimentary basins commonly exhibit pock-marks and/or seismically-recognised gas chimneys. Some of the above may be capable of generating significant oceanic convection. The geosphere can not be disregarded as an inactive substrate, it has its own processes and cyclicity some of which probably have significant influence on the oceanic thermal budget. As a young geologist, I was always interested in the findings of the numerous legs of the the DSDP (Deep Sea Drilling Project) oceanographic cruises by the Glomar Challenger, in the heyday of newly understood plate tectonics and continental drift. Many of the deep ocean core holes from the initial and follow up cruises were temperature logged, for example:
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/149_IR/chap_04/c4_18.htm
Much of this huge oceanic research advance in the late C20th is in no small measure down to the pure, no strings, research efforts made possible by co-operating US institutions such as the Lamont-Docherty Observatory, founded, eco-activists please note, on philanthropic private funding from the Docherty family, Henry Docherty having made his fortune in oil with the ‘Indian Territories Illuminating Oil Co’, then ‘Cities Service’, which until takeover the 80’s maintained one of the most important geological research laboratories and library in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Good posts Gary and Britannic. fm
We know so little about the sea floor. Recently over 200,000 new undersea volcanoes were discovered.
[source] [better source]
Paul Vaughan (14:21:06) :
Geoff Sharp (04:12:09) “Scafetta in his recent work noted that the AMO & PDO work on a 60 year cycle that correlates with the 60 year cycles of the Sun’s orbit. What is also interesting is looking at the amplitude of the PDO….it also matches the amplitude of the Suns distance from the centre of the solar system.”
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta.jpg
—————–
Geoff, this is interesting, but can you clarify your comments or provide a link? The graph to which you linked shows nothing surprising, so I am guessing your comments are largely motivated by something else (maybe a different graph)? In particular, I am curious to know exactly how you are getting the notion that: “the amplitude of the PDO […] matches the amplitude of the Suns distance from the centre of the solar system”.
Hi Paul, its very interesting but not too many people have picked up on it. I was referring to the trend line in the first graph, see how the amplitude varies (if the graph was stretched higher it would be a lot more obvious). Scafetta shows this trend change but does not know or talk about the underlying cause. He talks about The PDO & AMO lining up with the 60 year cycles caused by the varying Sun/SSB distance at this EPA conference here:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688#video
But perhaps he missed the amplitude change which is caused by the Neptune/Uranus conjunction, but the PDO graph not only follows the 60 yr period of his first graph but also the amplitude follows the same trend. To summarize, weak Angular Momentum equals weak PDO effect.
The exciting part for me is that finally we have someone new saying that solar modulation is a product of planet position.
Mick (00:47:45) :
I bet the military guys giggling.
Just imagine what ocean temp. data the submarine fleet has! In 3D.
Now that would be classified me think…
Methinks the data would be somewhat less useful than you do. Remember, US only operates about 100 boats (more or less) and they go to hot spots in the world (fast attack) or patrol in a box in some undisclosed location (boomers). The fast attack data would be inconsistent as to location and depth and you don’t get to know where the missile boats operate, period.
In either case, all submarine operations are classified and the submariners generally won’t talk even if they could. Here’s why:
After a senator, congressman or some official was given a tour on one of the new improved ‘Fleet boats’. He made a comment about the new improvements to WWII subs. One was the new hull design that increased diving depth to > 400ft. Up to this point the Germans and Japanese had set their depth charges for no more than 300ft because they knew subs didn’t go any deeper. It’s true a reporter heard this and printed an article touting the safety of submarines because they went deeper than the enemy depth charges. Soon after this article was printed the US suffered considerable submarine losses. It was traced back to this article and after that point submariners refused to say anything about their ships. Even the hull numbers were blackened out so observers couldn’t ID which subs were coming or going from port. I believe further verification of this can be found in Jane’s fighting ships. This error in judgment is also what coined the war phrase “Loose lip sink ships”
It only took a week for the depth charges to be reset and we lost boats and crews because of it.
Andy
Pamela Gray (08:36:01) “Overfishing occurs when catch is not restricted during the down cycle.”
Well-said Pamela …and yet in my area people are freaking out in the comments-section of local online-news forums because the only cycles of which they are aware are the diurnal & annual cycles. Reading through the comments (in those forums) it is evident that MOST of the people commenting assume the ONLY thing that affects the fish other than the annual cycle is humans …& as you know, those discussions get very nasty. WUWT readers would have a good laugh reading the comments …but at least our BC government is not fooled by the nonsense about fish – I’ll give them credit for that even if they have the wool over the public’s eyes with the carbon tax …which is really a way to (1) calm traffic in Vancouver so rich people can get around our congested-streets better and (2) help keep the province out-of-deficit for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Andy Beasley (18:34:06),
That incident was documented in a great book called Thunder Below! by Admiral Fluckey, who commanded the submarine Barb in WWII.
Adm. Fluckey [the most decorated living WWII veteran — including the CMH] mentioned the blabbermouth Congressman. His two word summary: “War crimes!”
Stephen Wilde (01:07:07) : “The systems in the air that deal highly effectively with the changes in energy flow from the oceans deal equally effectively with any energy budget changes induced by the air alone or by any component of the air including water vapour and CO2. As regards human CO2 the climate adjustment required to deal with it is miniscule and undetectable amongst the natural background variations created by the oceanic variability in the rate of energy release.”
SPOT ON. This guy is on to something.
Listening….
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey (18:59:29) :
Adm. Fluckey [the most decorated living WWII veteran — including the CMH] mentioned the blabbermouth Congressman. His two word summary: “War crimes!”
The sad thing is that it was probably an honest mistake. Most of the people serving in the government at that time still had some honor left. I think you would be hard pressed to find 10% with that quality in congress today. Look at the number of our representatives who voted for the recent _________ (fill in the blank) bill when there was no possible way that the bill could be read in its entirety given the time for review and the length of the bill. One of my Republican senators voted for the bill. I’m voting for the other guy next election.
Andy
Don’t think this question is too off topic… So you’ve got the two 800 pound gorilla’s in the room when it comes to Earth’s climate: the Sun and the Oceans.
One, takes up ~98% of the solar system’s mass. The other makes up 71% of the earth’s surface (and how much of the atmosphere as water vapor?).
How much heat can salt water hold? And why isn’t it considered part of the greenhouse? It’s a fluid as are the gases in the atmosphere, no? Is it true the models don’t consider the oceans?
Luke (21:20:55)
One of my early contentions was that for greenhouse purposes both oceans and air together should be treated as the atmosphere:
“I would argue that the oceans should be regarded as a form of atmosphere in much the same way as the air because both air and oceans have heat storing properties. In effect Earth’s ‘atmosphere’ is in two parts for heat storing purposes and water is the primary player in both components.”
From this article:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562
from July 2008
I would adjust some of the wording with hindsight, such as switching ‘energy’ for ‘heat’ and refining some of the phrases but the essence of it all remains sound I think.
savethesharks (20:19:02)
Thanks Chris,
Having spent the past 17 months accepting fire by blogosphere the climate description I have been creating has retained credibility, has continued to account for real world climate events even as they change, appears to have some predictive ability, complies with basic physics and is now in parts being replicated in the mainstream such as in the article at the head of this thread.
It is the only existing coherent climate overview following the processing of solar energy through from arrival to departure.
I’m sure there are flaws but they are not fatal.
There are remaining puzzles and I’m working on them but at least I’ve put forward a basic structure that can serve as a starting point for a more intelligent approach to climate science.
Everyone so far has been working bottom upwards from a confusing plethora of coflicting data.
I have adopted a top downwards approach and all the different bits turn out to fit nicely so far.
>> Luke (21:20:55) :
Is it true the models don’t consider the oceans? <<
GCMs (General Circulation Models) come in many flavors. AGCM are Atmospheric General Circulation Models. OGCM are Ocean General Circulation Models. AOGCM are Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models or just CGCM for Coupled GCMs.
The cell size for OGCMs are generally smaller than they are for AGCMs. This causes a mismatch at the surface boundary which usually requires a buffer layer. Many GCMs are of the coupled variety.
Jim
Finally a piece on the real creator of the earths atmosphere and weather / climate.
The sun may provide the energy but the vast dirty oceans makes this planet habitable.
The atmosphere is heated by the solar heated land and oceans, the ocean heat release is low and slow, the land release is high and quick. The atmosphere looses it’s heat contant very quickly, basicly over night. At sunup the air temperature is generally as low or lower then the local ground or water temperature.
Storms over the oceans act as a fume scrubber to wash (clean) the air of chemicals (CO2) etc. to be precipitated out by combination with contaminats (dirt).
The O2 N2 atmosphere is the creation of solar radiation caused disassociation of H2O and NH3, hydrogen is lost to space and gravity tends to trap the oxygen and nitrogen.
Stephen Wilde (23:00:11) :
This is a bizarre retooling of accepted terminology. We have an atmosphere and we have an ocean. Both are important. Why do we need to rename the oceans to be a part of the atmosphere?
From “Blackadder Goes Forth”
General Melchett: If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
I’m thinking of getting some T-shirts printed up for Copenhagen later this year…
Cheers
Mark
oma (00:41:05)
Bizarre it may seem to some but it is nevertheless essential for the purpose of understanding why the temperature of the Earth is what it is.
Liquid water in the oceans and gaseous water vapour in the air both carry out the functions of transmitting solar energy through the Earth system and converting it to longwave from shortwave releasing heat energy in the process.
The effects of both media need to be seperated so that one can see how insignificant is the proportion of the job done by the air.
Sometimes retooling gives profoundly helpful results.
It is easy to view Ocean/Atmosphere as being separate at the energy levels we receive because there is a visible divide. But if the energy arriving here were a lot higher then that divide would disappear – ocean and atmosphere would become one.
As things stand we live just beyond the lower extreme where most water is ice and well away from all water being vapour. If the Sun were to increase it’s output tomorrow then the atmosphere would get more dense in proportion, that additional density being water vapour from the Ocean.
To put it another way, if you towed Venus away from the Sun, at some particular orbit you would get something we recognize as oceans and atmosphere. If you towed it even further you would get a solid with no atmosphere.
It is all just the same CO2 it has currently though.
Frightening only if you turn every “anomaly” into a planetary scare before you understand exactly what you are looking at. :~) My guess is that there will be many more scares over then coming decades for just the same reasons as the current one.
I’ve been intrigued by the discussions about the possible effects on climate of geothermal heat.
.
I have a simple working hypothesis: that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate, probably due to the effect of dominant negative feedbacks. Several times I’ve asked this question: is there any period in Earth’s history when it can be proven that the climate was driven by CO2? I never received an answer. Of course, the best evidence, the ice cores, appears to confirm my hypothesis. As we know, the CO2 followed the temperature and not the other way around.
.
But could proof come from some special event, such as Snowball Earth (assuming it really happened?) It has been assumed that the long freeze came to an end due to vast volcanic eruptions that dumped huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. If this chain of events could be proven beyond any doubt, then it certainly would provide evidence that CO2 can drive the climate, even if only in a very special circumstance.
.
But a thought did occur some time ago: if there were vast volcanic eruptions at the end of Snowball Earth, would there be sufficient additional geothermal energy to produce a warming? And if so, could Snowball Earth itself have been triggered by a significant fall in volcanic activity?
.
Is it possible that long term changes in volcanism and an associated change in geothermal energy could explain some of the great climate changes in history?
Chris
Aug 17, 2009
The Great Modelling Fraud
By Norm Kalmanovitch
Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud. All of the global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of the global temperature clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to 1975, at which time the world reverted to warming which all global temperature datasets clearly show ended after 1998, with a cooling trend that is still continuing.
Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942. This equates to each gigatonne increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature.
As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975 global emissions increase from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20 billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975.
During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increase by 16 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and based on the previous warming this should have caused 16C of global warming but instead there was nothing but cooling.
It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a forcing parameter that related global warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from humans.
Since these are supposed climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The relationship of the forcing parameter of the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) in which C0 represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration, clearly shows that increases in CO2 concentration will produce an increase in temperature. This did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975 and therefore this parameter is clearly not valid.
The modelers also related global warming directly to human sourced CO2 emissions, but these were increasing dramatically as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years, making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.
Since physical data already existed that completely falsified the forcing parameter of the climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had to be known by the modelers, it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.
If the modelers were unaware that this physical data falsified their forcing parameter it is still fraud because the modelers misrepresented their credentials as climate specialists.
Either way it is still fraud, and as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global emissions of CO2 both continue to increase while global temperatures continue to drop the fraud becomes more and more obvious.
From icecap.us
I notice a lot of referneses to awesome episodes and excerpts of Blackadder and Monty Python. Choice!