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.
Ron de Haan (05:49:34)
Have a look at the video here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/century-to-decade-climate-change-created-by-planetary-motion/
Thank you. Previously I had looked at only the pdf, skipping the video. You’ve caused me to realize there is important info in the video (particularly near the end) that cannot be gleaned from the pdf.
Nicola Scafetta – Feb. 26, 2009 – Climate change and its causes: a discussion about some key issues.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688#video
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
– –
Geoff Sharp (18:23:13) “[…] perhaps he missed the amplitude change which is caused by the Neptune/Uranus conjunction, but […]”
He talks about it when asked. His response is sensible given the broader context of the presentation and the even broader [politically-charged] context. We may hear more from him on this sometime down the road. I suspect he is pacing the rate at which he introduces new ideas in order to retain audience receptivity. I commend him for his tact & patience in handling tangential interruptions, particularly considering that many of the questions from the audience were rooted in inattentiveness.
–
Geoff Sharp (18:23:13) “The exciting part for me is that finally we have someone new saying […]”
And note how thoroughly scientific he is: at Earth? – through the sun? – or both? He is not prejudging.
For balance, I will offer some criticism:
Note that Scafetta has (or at least appears to have) overlooked the highest-frequency component:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/M4PxPyf123.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/(J,N)o2&Pr.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/(J,N),r..png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PhaseConcordancePxySI.png
The following is a progression of crystallizing insight (that is easy to overlook):
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zF…18.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zF…32.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zm269..png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/zm269…png
The Chandler wobble phase reversal of ~1931, in conjunction with knowledge of north-south terrestrial asymmetry, is one key to unraveling the details of the 3 possibilities Scafetta outlines.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriod.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/1931UniquePhaseHarmonics.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/EstChandlerPeriodMorlet(2pi).PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/f(Pr.,-2r..,-3LNC)LOD.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/LODaa(yoy)diffsqHadSST.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Phase(2r..-Pr)MorletPiLin(3.5,9.5)Chandler.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Phase(2r..-Pr)MorletPiLin(3.5,9.5a)LNC.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Phase(r..,LNC).png
If you have patience, try to make sense of this:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Pr,JN4,r..,m4..png
Cross-wavelet harmonic analysis provides an objective means of assessing resonances.
Thanks Stephan and Jim.
The thought struck me last night, that the two should be considered in tandem.
If all bodies of water were considered part of the “atmosphere” what percentage would then be liquid?
Stephen Wilde
A question. I think it was you who said above that the greenhouse effect was unimportant, as distinct from the effect of CO2 compared to water vapour.
Roy Spencer says in his book Climate Confusion that if there was no transpost of heat in the atmosphere from the equator to the poles, the average surface temp would be some 60C as a result of the greenhouse effect. This effect is of course derived from a model as we can’t make the wind stop blowing.
Conversely, I thought that without the greenhouse effect the average surface temp would be below freezing.
Always willing to learn.
Regards
Paul
Paul Maynard (10:23:54)
I’m not sure that Roy is distinguishing between the greenhouse effect of the air and the similar effect of the oceans which I term The Hot Water Bottle Effect.
I have said that the greenhouse effect in the air is insignificant compared to the HWBE in the oceans and that the greenhouse effect of human CO2 is insignificant compared to the natural component.
If there were no greenhouse effect in the air you would notice no difference because of The Hot Water Bottle Effect save that no air would also result in no oceans because there would be no hydrological cycle and all the water would evaporate to space.
The average surface temperature in that situation would be like that of the moon i.e. very hot facing the sun and very cold facing away from the sun. Not sure how that would average out though.
Stephen Wilde (01:28:33) :
Be that as it may, there is already an entire field that studies the oceans (and it isn’t meterology). There is also substantial ongoing work in ocean-atmosphere coupling from both ends.
So, I ask again, why do we need to redefine the ocean to be part of the atmosphere?
Luke (09:31:30) :
Luckily, they are.
The water vapor content of the atmosphere represents much less than 1 m thickness of liquid water over the surface of the earth.
“So, I ask again, why do we need to redefine the ocean to be part of the atmosphere ?”
and I say again:
“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.”
You dont need to view the oceans as part of the ‘atmosphere’ for any other purpose so what is your problem ?
My problem is that you keep trying to peddle old ideas under new names.
oms (11:45:22)
That’s news to me. Do elaborate.
I’d hate to think I’m wasting my life with stuff that others realised before the alarmist cult took over.
But then perhaps I am doing humanity a service by reinvigorating ideas unjustly ignored.
Stephen Wilde, I understand your point about regarding oceans & atmosphere collectively (for some purposes) and suggest that we:
a) be receptive to the message of N.S. Sidorenkov (for example, his valuable illustration of estimates being out by a factor of 30 under false assumptions about the distribution of water on Earth).
b) figure out why Earth’s Chandler wobble period stabilized as soon as it phase-aligned with Jupiter-Neptune (~1936). (If you understand what Sidorenkov is saying, this relates to the hydrologic cycle and Earth’s asymmetry.)
“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.”
Thermal expansion. Coastal erosion leads to declining coasts as well. Some ice still is melting despite false reports elsewhere.
Okay, where is the heat transfering the energy then? Where are temperarures changing? The atmosphere recieves some of this heat loss and a good % of it is held in, and the land temps change at varying rates depending upon the surface albedo; now, then heat (S) transfer converted to terms of q, in kilojoules, transfers and is absorbed depending upon the material chemical structure, color, shade, and physical composition.
The kinetic energy, the internal energy state of transfer due to temperature differences does not magically go to space; naturally of course GHG’s hold in energy, so, as GHG’s go up and rise from the mid and upper troposphere and into the stratosphere, more total thermal energy is brought back to the Earth’s surface; this will mean within the next 2 years, we will see a drastic resurgence in ocean holding onto thermal energy, as it shifts from both the atmosphere and the land surfaces. Water will not heat uniformly and it cannot warm in a linear fashion from year to year; this would violate simple physics, however, soon the heating will be concave up, and not just back in line with trend.
I wil digress for now with these links:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575286/Heat_(physics).html
http://hendrix.uoregon.edu/~dlivelyb/phys161/L14.html
http://hendrix.uoregon.edu/~dlivelyb/phys161/L15.html
http://hendrix.uoregon.edu/~dlivelyb/phys161/L16.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm