Nicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980. He writes in email:
…note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta
Abstract
The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and
or
. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.
Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)
Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.
…
This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.
About the result depicted in Figure 6, the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: 1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate; 2) by the findings by Scafetta [2008a] and Schwartz [2008] about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions were not used to calibrate the model, as done in Scafetta and West [2007]. Thus, the finding shown in Figure 6 referring to the preindustrial era has also a predictive meaning, and implies that climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.
The complete paper is available here:
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil. (10:48:44) :
D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
—–
Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.
In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential.
D. Patterson (11:58:47) :
Phil. (10:48:44) :
D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
—–
Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.
No it means your reading comprehension is poor have another go.
Stephen Wilde (00:46:45) :
“Why do you need math details ?”
To confirm or disconfirm your claims. Otherwise what you say is mere
speculation, if that.
“The oceans change phase, the global temperature trend changes, the air circulation systems change latitudinally.”
Do tell. Let’s see the data: phase you should know is mathematically describable. How does it change? when does it change? and ultimately
why does it change. Global temperature trends? Do tell. Trend is a mathematically describable entity. How does it change? when does it change? are you sure? how sure? Change point analysis? Air circulation
systems change? same set of questions.
The simple point is this. Nothing that you say comes close to being a confirmable or disconfirmable statement of science.
“You don’t need math to tell you that your head hurts when someone hits it with a hammer.”
Yes, but we are not talking about raw feels. the ocean was freezing last time I swam. the desert was hot. And your point would be? You do need math to do science. To understand why things happen and test that explanation by making predictions.
“Math details would be of use in seperating solar and oceanic effects and Leif would be the master there but I don’t need that for my simple observation of real world events or to interpret the most likely implications.”
Sorry, you may be able to convince yourself, but this jury member requires more than your impressionistic analogy ridden speculations.
“How would you account for it ?”
How would I account for what? the data? that would be math.
The ocean is a capacitor. no wait, it’s a ferrite bead.
>> Phil. (10:48:44) :
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<
I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.
However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.
Jim
>> Jim (11:59:48) :
In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential. <<
I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?
If it’s Kelvin’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 316.8K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 571 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 481 W/m^2 or a temperature of 303.4K and a 5.4K rise.
If it’s Celsius’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 289.5K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 398 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 394 W/m^2 or a temperature of 288.8K and a 0.8K rise.
These are greatly simplified examples only, and I don’t guarantee the math either. To get more accurate answers, we must feed these changes into a model with the appropriate feedbacks, latent/sensible heat fluxes, and a day/night response. The night side should be cooler (I used 15C), so that will modify these numbers more.
Jim
Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :
“…most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur. ”
In other words:
The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.
Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :
>> Phil. (10:48:44) :
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<
I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.
However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.
Not my choice of words Jim, Patterson said: “Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space” and I corrected the error.
D. Patterson (15:05:42) :
In other words:
The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.
You still haven’t got it right about five times as much energy is transferred from the surface to the troposphere by radiative means as by latent heat transport. All the energy transport to space is by radiative means.
>> D. Patterson (15:05:42) : <<
Hand waving works in science until you start talking numbers. Once numbers enter the conversation, it’s hard to wave it off.
If we assume the surface of the Earth is 15C or 288K then the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us 390 W/m^2. That’s for a blackbody with an emissivity of 1.0. The lowest arguable emissivity for the Earth’s surface is around 0.9. If we use that worst case we get 351 W/m^2. You have two choices: 1) either come up with values for latent and sensible heat flux that are far greater than 351 W/m^2 or 2) the Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong. (You’re going to have tough time proving item 2.)
The way they compute latent heat flux is from total rainfall. The idea here is that what goes up must come down. The total rainfall on the Earth is estimated at about 1m/yr (per unit area). There’s a simple conversion from water at 0C to vapor at 100C (using latent heat of vaporization). This gives us about 78 W/m^2. Error values are probably high and are around plus or minus 25 W/m^2.
There’s a bulk aerodynamic formula for estimating the sensible heat flux. That value is around 24 W/m^2. Even if these values are off by 100%, radiant heat flux is still much higher. You have your work cutout for you.
Jim
*********************
Jim Masterson (13:26:50) :
>> Jim (11:59:48) :
I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?
******************
I should have said just X %. And I appreciate you helping me to understand some things. My only point here was that the higher temperature (X% higher) would cause a larger rate of cooling on the night side. It might well not be significant if the warming were small. Is there anywhere on the web that has an example mathematical model of some of the concepts we have been discussing? I need a kick start as it has been many years since P-chem.
Jim Masterson (16:40:22) :
There are many “expert” sources who know a whole lot more about the subject than I ever will, so I’m not going to try and wade ito an area which even they cannot seem to agree even in some of the gross magnitudes. I’ve seen many of them over the years, including Trenberth et al. I do not recall at the present time which sources persuaded me long ago about the extent to which the non-radiative thermal energy transfer processes were somewhat dominant. I do not trust relying upon Trenberth et al to the exclusion of the other sources. So, I can only recommend you keep an open mind, as I will, and investigate the issue further knowing there are conflicting authorities on this subject. For an example which does not necessarily agree with my statement of Trenberth’s diagram, see the diagram from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1994, Solar Radiation: Energy Exchange. If I can rediscover one of my sources, I’ll follow up with a reference. Sorry, but that is the best I can do for the moment. Just understand this is not as cut and dried an issue as some in the present day climate science community would have you believe.
D. Patterson (18:17:44) :
Please do follow up if you can find those sources. The reasons for any discrepancies would be interesting to follow up on.
The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers.
I note the figures which suggest that radiant energy transfer from surface to upper levels of the atmosphere (before radiation of all energy to space) dominates over the effect of the hydrological cycle in shifting energy from the surface to the same upper levels.
However the hydrological cycle with it’s clouds and rainfall is highly variable in speed and efficiency involving as it does all the air circulation systems around the globe.
Furthermore various features of the hydrological cycle themselves directly affect the rate of transfer of radiative energy both incoming and outgoing.
I don’t find it hard to envisage a greater contribution to variations in the overall energy budget from variations in the speed and efficiency of the hydrological cycle than from variations in any other factor.
It is variability in the energy flows that causes changes in global air temperatures whereas the standard averaged background numbers merely represent a stable scenario at a fixed point in time. There never actually is such a stable scenario in reality, there is always constant change.
Do the available figures help with that aspect at all ?
Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.
Except when it is carried by your quantum tunneling mechanism that heats the solar corona.
oms (01:02:34) :
I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Memo_2508_Greenhouse_confusion.pdf
Caveat, I have not attempted to analyze his comments, so I have no particular opinion about their accuracy or lack thereof. I have not tried to add up the numbers to see whether or not his criticism is valid. Just note his comments are there for whatever they are worth, and note his comment about the relative importance of radiative transfer versus convective transfer.
“In essence, they referred to the traditional view that is based on heat transfer to the atmosphere via radiation, whereas heat from the earth’s surface is mainly transferred by convection. Radiation only accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the earth’s surface to the troposphere.”
At the risk of inviting some abuse for mentioning it, there is another altrnative source discussing the energy budget. Again, I’ve made no attempt yet to fully read or analyze the source, so I am certainly not offering any opinions about it one way or another. Since you are interested in other sources besides Kiehl and Trenberth, I’m only noting the opposing point of view is out there for investigation and perhaps discussion for anyone who may feel it is warranted. See:
The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
Now I’m wishing I had some notes to the old sources. It is one of thsoe circumstances where you learn some information in the course of your work which was supposedly non-controversial in its day, and you do not anticipate a need to defend it in the future.
The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. I have to chuckle, however, when I read the part where they describe the Kiehl and Trenberth theory as a “traditional” point of view. The below cited paper was published only very recently, whereas the dominance of convective transfers in contradiction to Kiehl and Tranberth was a concept we used routinely thirty to forty years ago. So, this paper cannot possibly be one of my old sources. Makes you wonder if climate science suffers from memory holes analogous to those ozone holes.
G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2; 1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; 2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1–9, 2008; Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online; DOI: 10.1080/15567030701568727.
Abstract The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“Introduction
Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)–mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004).”
Note, Eli Rabett and others have undertaken the usual disparagement of these latest opposition sources.
>> Jim (17:54:39) :
Is there anywhere on the web that has an example mathematical model of some of the concepts we have been discussing? <<
Not that I know of. I made my own using an Excel spreadsheet with macros to get around the self referencing cell problem.
>> oms (01:02:34) :
The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers. <<
I’m very critical of K-T 1997. For example, where did they get the 40 W/m^2 for the IR window? Their calculation is nonsense. I asked Dr. Roy Spencer what the value was, and he said it was very difficult to measure/calculate but gave no value or estimate. Nowhere do I find any support for that figure, yet it’s THE figure.
>> D. Patterson (08:43:37) :
I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion . . . . <<
It’s just more hand waving.
>> The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi . . . . <<
It would be nice if these new theories would create a corrected cartoon of their heat flows. In the end, the heat flows have to balance, and I’ve not seen much of a balancing act. All they say is that K-T 1997 is wrong. Fine, so do I.
>> D. Patterson (09:47:11) :
The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. <<
You left out the title (Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission). Someday, I’ll read it. For now, I would like to see their numbers balance.
Jim
I am a little bit reticent to put my 2c-worth into this erudite discussion, but it seems that one or two straightforward points have been missed.
bill (05:45:24) : “2. ocean cycles simply move the heat around (unless I misunderstand?) They do not add to the overall energy content of the system. so this does not explain the temperature rise over the last 100years.”
Yes I’m sure they do just move the heat around. But they can move the heat around vertically as well as horizontally. I suspect that only the SST affects atmospheric temperature directly, and the “temperature rise over the last 100years” was atmospheric or at the surface – therefore the ocean cycles could have been responsible for the obsereved temperature rise.
“3. solar cycles are 11 and 22 years – sea temperatures to a few 10s of metres are heated and cooled summer to winter (a much shorter timescale). What property of water stores heat for 30 years at greater depths. For the “solar” radiation to reach these greater depths it will have heated the interveining water (to a higer temp) as it gets progressively absorbed.”
Same basic error as before. Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.
Leif Svalgaard (13:30:38) : “And from the inferred TSI variation of +/- 1 W/m2, the expected response from the laws of physics is 0.05 K which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is visible above the unrelated much larger variations.”
I think that you are here referring to the output from the sun (“TSI”) and sea temperature (“0.05 K”). If so, then I would (with some trepidation!) suggest that you are incorrect. The variation in TSI – if I have understood you correctly – is not the same as the variation in solar energy reaching the oceans, primarily because of clouds. Variation in cloud cover can at least theoretically cause far greater variation at sea level. Indeed, an examination of the Earth’s albedo (primarily cloud cover) from the 1980s onwards, and ocean temperature, as in papers by Palle (albedo), Willis, Cazenave and Leuliette (ocean temperature), to my eye shows that the ocean temperature has very likely been driven in large part by cloud cover.
Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
that the ocean temperature has very likely been driven in large part by cloud cover.
And then you will have to assume that the Sun drives the cloud cover. [which, of course, some people do].
Leif Svalgaard (06:20:45) :
And then you will have to assume that the Sun drives the cloud cover.
The sahara must be a very cloudy place with all that sun!
Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
… Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.
OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?
Salinity increase due to evapouration? You still have a hotter surface than at depth.
I thought most inversions occurred at river interfaces. Any references for inversions lasting decades?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/luh162830307jm43/ – only annual
I think ocean SSTs drive cloud cover (and everything else) rather than vice versa.
Of course there will then be a feedback effect from the change in cloud cover but I’m not aware of any such feedback reversing the 25 to 30 year oceanic phase shifts from net global warming to net global cooling.
Linking those oceanic changes to solar changes is the problem.
But then I have suggested that that may not be necessary if the oceans themselves generate more or less heat energy over time by decelerating and accelerating the flow of energy through the system periodically.
If that were so then the smallness of the solar variability wouldn’t really matter over periods of less than centuries but could conceivably provide a small slow background trend such as we do observe and without invoking CO2 as a driver.
I think there was a terminological misunderstanding between me and Leif above.
When he said that the much larger variations in the climate system were ‘unrelated to the sun’ I took that literally instead of realising that he meant ‘unrelated to variations in the sun’.
I would like to hear views as to whether accelerating and decelerating the flow of energy through the oceans could indeed generate less or more energy in the form of heat independently of solar input.
Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?
In performing that function would varying amounts of heat energy be produced within the oceans or not ?
“Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
… Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.
OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?
Salinity increase due to evapouration? You still have a hotter surface than at depth”.
I’ll have a go at this.
Each wavelength of incoming energy from sun to oceans has a different effect. Many fail to penetrate the surface at all. Many get no further than the region involved in evaporation so that their energy is converted to latent heat and lost back to the air above. Many get past the evaporative region and contribute to the oceanic energy content.
Even those in the last group vary considerably. Some get just beyond the evaporative region and others penetrate to 100 metres or more before they are fully absorbed.
As far as ocean heat content is concerned we should only consider the wavelengths that get beneath the region involved in evaporation.
The deeper a particular wavelength can penetrate the more likely it is that the energy injected into the ocean by that wavelength will be moved around by subsurface oceanic movement. There seems to be a process whereby the oceans become capable of redistributing internally the energy absorbed from the more energetic wavelengths received from the sun. Once absorbed the energy from those wavelrengths becomes represented by an increase in water temperature.
As far as I know we have no knowledge of the ocean mechanics involved in such processes but they must exist because we observe the consequences.
Those consequences are the phase changes in the oceans whereby for 25 to 30 years at a time the rate of energy release from oceans to air is either warming or cooling the air around the globe.
There is plenty of material available confirming that which happens in the Pacific. During a negative (cooling) period El Nino events are suppressed and La Nina events enhanced. Vice versa during a positive (warming) period.
Similar phase shifts occur in other oceans.
We cannot ignore those oceanic phenomena and it seems that we cannot attribute them either to changes in the air or changes in the sun yet they seem to be the primary driver of all observed climate changes.
The way the oceans ‘process’ those more energetic wavelengths and then decelerate or accelerate the energy flow back into the air seems to be at the heart of climate change.
We seem to be under the impression in this discussion that Earth and its atmosphere is a one way open system of energy intake and is thus very sensitive to minute changes in solar input of whatever kind and fairly good at storing it. I see the Earth as very leaky in a chaotic way and not very good at storing solar energy for long periods of time. Our atmosphere is both chaotic in the amount of solar energy it lets in, it is chaotic in the way it leaks it out. It therefore stands to reason that variations of ocean and land surface temperatures on both short and long term scales are an endogenous process unique to our planet.
Maybe we should be using chaotic calculations such as can be demonstrated with multi-dimensional random walk fractal math.
addendum: The Earth’s flora and fauna is very good at using solar energy, thus can be said to be a consistently reliable and calculable storage system, in a sense. My above post is related to only that part of the budget that can be measured with a simple thermometer stuck in the oceans, measured throughout the atmosphere from space, and measured outside your back door (which assumes that you are away from the building, no BBQ, and other such standard surroundings).