NCAR spots the "transistor effect" – Small solar activity fluctuations amplify to larger climate influences

Dominos. Or could it be “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”? Interesting.

Further information
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/person/gerald-meehl
with specific links
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/small-fluctuations-solar-activity-large-influence-climate-24510.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-uncover-solar-cycle-stratosphere-and-ocean-connections-24512.html

“This investigation shows again that we still have substantial research needs to understand the climate system”.
Yes we do indeed. Are you listening Al?

This makes intiutive sense to me. I look forward to (real) scientists and engineers weighing in. Leif, what are your thoughts?
Have Prof. Richard Huettl of the GFZ, Alfred Wegener IPMP, Senckenberg RI, and the Natural History Museum invited contributors from WUWT? If not, can we contribute to send a few “delegates”?

Mark Bowen: Dave E
Here is your disclaimer I think
Last sentence of paper:
“This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.”

Wow! Interesting work.
Add the possible cosmic ray effects and “iris” effects, and maybe we don’t really need CO2, anymore.
“interdigitate” is a new one for me.

An interesting post because it is a look at the Earth energy flow system as a coherent whole which is just what I have been doing for the past 18 months.
However it goes along with the predomimant current view in both warmist and sceptic camps that the driving forces originate in the air.
My view is that that is not possible. The oceans control the air at all times.
There are the following objections to this post:
1) There is no clear 11 year climate cycle which must follow from the proposition that there is amplification of the sunspot variations in each cycle.
Leif Svalgaard’s points about the smallness of solar variability on that time scale are convincing to me. It takes a run of several weaker or stronger cycles to make a significant difference to total energy input to the oceans such that a background warming or cooling trend can be established and even that is frequently hidden behind a complex oceanic variability with cycles operating separately in each major body of water and often supplementing or offsetting each other and solar variations.
2) They correctly refer to changed circulations in the air bur fail to note that the most significant such shifts follow and do not lead oceanic changes. For example the main observed shifts in global temperature trends and the shifts in the latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems always follow the 25 to 30 year shifts in the phase of the oceans (especially the Pacific – usually referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
3) Just as with the AGW warmers they rely on a positive feedback. In this case they call it ‘positive back coupling’ as opposed to the water vapour feedback process of the warmers. The trouble is that all observations show that the climate system is always sharply negative otherwise the long term stability we see would have been lost long ago.
All the above problems and many others can be dealt with by noting the simple real world observation that it is the oceans which change the rate at which energy is released to the air and that drives everything else we see in terms of weather and both global and regional climate shifts.
I don’t see anyone seriously denying either the PDO phase shifts or the climate response. There are similar climate responses to individual ENSO events but they are less easily discernible amongst the background chaotic variability of weather.
Nor do I see any evidence that climate changes happen first and the oceans follow.
I really cannot understand the persistence of the view that all one has to do is change something in the air to change the Earth’s climate. Any warmist or sceptic ideas that rely on that proposition are being discredited daily by ongoing observations.

Yet another reason to put a hold on all carbon legislation, bin the current GCM models, and start from scratch collecting good data and building models openly verified on empirical evidence.

This is old, so if anyone can shed further light , I am open to it: A.E. Douglas showed that prairie drought cycles followed solar cycles pretty closely. Correlation isn’t causation, but sometimes it is. Great post Anthony, and I like the transistor analogy, but was wondering if, due to the mitigating capacity of the oceans, it would be more like a resistor? Once again, I am open to correction. This can be a humbling website to those of us who are smart enough to know we are dumb. All humans are dumb, but what scares me most are people who are too dumb to know they are dumb.

The article states “Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability….”
I seem to have seen it stated categorically on many occasions that the sunspot cycle couldn’t possibly have any effect on the climate. Usually stated in a curt and dismissive manner!

It was worth reading this article just to enjoy “interdigitate” (And to learn that NASCAR does things other than race cars).

“This can be a humbling website to those of us who are smart enough to know we are dumb. All humans are dumb, but what scares me most are people who are too dumb to know they are dumb.”
Hang on ….. I know I’m dumb – does that mean I’m smart?
Me ‘ed ‘urts.

“Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate”
“In order to better understand the anthropogenically induced climate change”
One almost gets the impression that the researchers are covering their PC tracks as the two statements suggest great potential for obvious contradictions. After all if they stand behind their research, the enevitable conclusion is that the measure of the anthropogenic componet of the recent warming would have to be diminished as a result. . .possibly significantly.
In this case it really is a zero sum calculation.

Calling Dr. Svensmark…Dr. Svensmark to the operating room… STAT!

Nope. You have to be really smart to realise how dumb you are.
Part of the human condition I am afraid.
Kindest Regards

Creative ideas are always logical in hindsight. This is some great research.
Mike Ramsey

Stephen Wilde (14:53:21),
I see electrical engineering is not your strong point.
1. What you are looking for is capacitance not resistance.
2. A fixed resistor at constant current delivers a fixed amount of heat. Resistors are 100% efficient in converting electrical power to heat. P = I^2 * R

Stephen Wilde (14:53:21) :

A constant current through a resistor will result in different amounts of heat being produced depending on the efficiency of the resistor.

Being a sceptic doesn’t make me accept bad science!
Depending upon what you mean by heat…
1) Energy. the energy dissipation will be the same, no matter what.
2) Temperature. Yes, varying efficiency of energy dissipation will lead to different temperatures. (A good heat sink will dissipate energy more efficiently and at a lower temperature)
This is why the use of the correct terminology is so vital. Heat ain’t energy, it’s the transfer of energy.
Incidentally, the heating would be the same in both above scenarios, only the temperature would change.
DaveE.

Nice to see a post on my favourite subject of sunspots, UV and climate bias Anthony.
Guys, it isn’t a transistor effect, a resistor effect, or even a thermistor type reaction. If I would offer an electronic equivalent name it would be an atmospheric ‘band pass filter’ that periodically accentuates ocean temperatures.
BTW. I liked the NASCAR pun. Those guys probably are just as well equipped in the tech field to deal with climate.
Best regards, suricat.

It’s interesting how studies that seem to contradict or at least modify major tenants of the “consensus” on AGW pay lip service to the concept. Here’s another example. A study finds that the heat waves that have been plaguing California and much of the rest of the west lately are caused by increased humidity. The water vapor comes from increased warmed in a section of the ocean and prevents heat from escaping into space at night. What causes the increased ocean warmth and thus the humidity? Well, AGW, obviously.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090825151008.htm
Having read a lot of things like that, I get the feeling that a substantial portion of scientists working in the area are playing a bit of a double game. They publish stuff that chips away at the margins of the AGW hypothesis and then add a sentence or two at the end to get past peer review at the more politicized scientific venues.

suricat (18:14:07) :
Bandpass is what I thought about many months ago, but the experts say no way, Jose. Cannot happen. Maybe it does, resistor, transistor, diode, whatever.

I agree with Anthony. This is a transistor-like effect. In a transistor a small variation in current input to one port results in a large variation in current flow on another port. Or, a small energy modulation controls a large energy flow.
In this case there is a small variation in ultraviolet that modulates a much larger flow in the visible portion of the spectrum where the ocean picks up most of its heat. It is almost like a phototransistor controlling an iris (not the floral type) or something.

This is a computer model simulation study. What does it prove/disprove?

Steve Hempell (14:19:42) :
Mark Bowen: Dave E
That last statement is likely talking about the 11 year cycle not solar effect per se. Piers Corbyn also does not like to use the 11 year cycle.

This is a computer model simulation study. What does it prove/disprove?
This, by itself, may not prove, disprove anything. But, what it does, is give a testable hypothesis that is at variance with the CO2 theories bandied about and has the advantage of actually making sense.

WUWT post on Nir Shaviv’s amplifying solar activity :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/
comment from Nir Shaviv at that post :
Nir Shaviv (00:01:06) : (4/17/2009)
Lief also further said (at 03:42) that he doesn’t see the 11-year cycle in the satellite data. Well, the data barely covers a cycle, and it so happens that with the exception of the 1997 super el-niño, there is a clear trend which is consistent with the data: 1994-1995 low rate @ solar minimum, 2001-2002 high rate @ solar maximum, and 2007-8 low rate again at solar minimum. Of course, there is a lot of short term variability, but the signal is there.
(bolds by me)

This research is headed in the right direction….and makes damn good intuitive sense.
Slowly…..slowly….uncovering a complex web of slight solar variability magnified in the huge vat of energy storage of our planet: the Oceans.
Anthropogenic forcing wha??? Huh? What is that?
In less than 20 years it will be relegated to the annals of sham science and taught only for fun.
The REAL term here that should be used here is “anthropogenic pollution”.
And THAT problem is regularly being thrown under the rickety tie-dyed AGW bus.
When does anyone hear Al Gore or anyone else talking about the huge trash gyre in the Pacific?
Or about disastrous overfishing?
Or pointing out that the worst environmental disaster sites are outside the US borders….specifically China and India.
Yeah China the Pac NW really is appreciative of the huge amounts of mercury and other poisons you send their way through the hydrologic cycle!
All of these FIXABLE problems….drowned in an orgy of demonizing CO2 and cap and trade.
They need to give up on their AGW cult and either snap out of it or collectively drink the arsenic-laced punch….because THE OCEANS AND THE SUN HAVE IT.
The research that is the subject of this thread is encouraging progress.
I really appreciate all of the great minds on this site. Enlightening info. I keep coming back for more.
[And Stephen Wilde, your lyrical posts are spot on. Keep it up.]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Imagine the hypothetical trial by the US Chamber of Commerce on global warming…
Perry Mason calls James Hansen to testify.
“Are you aware of the study by Gerald Meehl in which extremely small variations in radiation brings about a comparatively significant change in the System “Atmosphere-Ocean?””
Hansen: “No sir, I am not. This study has not been peer-reviewed by appropriate warmists.”
Mason: “Meaning…?”
Hansen: “RealClimate has yet to weigh in on the findings.”
Burger approaches for cross-examination. “Did you call for Nuremburg-style trials for skeptics?”
Hansen: “No sir. I called for burning at the stake.”
Burger: “Is this not the antithesis of the scientific method?”
Hansen: “Everyone knows the science is settled, so this sun thing can’t be right. Haven’t you seen those pictures of fluffy polar bears on melting ice?”
Mason: I call Al Gore to the stand. “Isn’t the sun’s influence on climate rather inconvenient?”
Gore: “No comment.”

Meehl, G.A.; Arblaster, J.M.; Matthes, K.; Sassi, F.; van Loon, H. (2009). Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing. Science 325, 1114-1118.
“Though the solar-forced eastern equatorial SST anomalies shown here are about half the amplitude of those associated with the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, they are relevant for understanding decadal timescale variability in the Pacific.”

M. Simon (17:05:45)
I’m not an electrical engineer so terminological advice is happily accepted. As regards the resistor idea I did say that the oceans are apparently variable in the level of resistance they offer to the flow of solar energy through them. If that makes them a capacitor then that’s fine by me.
DaveE (17:13:33)
Agreed, I should have referred to temperature and not heat. Generally I do avoid the use of the word ‘heat’ these days but I slipped up there.
Steamboat McGoo (17:14:14)
I am suggesting that the thermal dissipation effect of the oceanic resistor is variable over time. I could have made that clearer in the sentence you refer to but it is mentioned elsewhere.
Kevin Kilty (20:29:40)
If the UV is doing the driving it is a transistor (or valve) effect. If the oceans are doing the driving it is a resistor (or is it capacitor ?) effect. I’m open to persuasion but I have already said why I am doubtful about the UV effect being in control on anything less than century timescales.
tallbloke (23:31:09)
Yes, after posting I felt unhappy about the use of the word ‘holding’.
The oceans only slow down the passage of solar energy through them rather than ‘holding’ energy but in a sense the energy is being ‘held’ for a very short time as the slowdown occurs. The length of delay is miniscule but enough to lengthen the wavelength and produce a rise in temperature. Solar shortwave comes in but only longwave goes out. The conversion process must raise the temperature of the material that causes the wavelength change and most of it is water, not air. As soon as the solar input varies then so does the amount of energy flowing through so ‘holding’ in the usual meaning of the term does not happen as you correctly point out. However it is not the amount of energy flowing through that matters most on timescales of less than centuries. Instead it is the variable level of resistance offerred by the oceans taken as a whole at any given moment. If this proposition adequately decouples oceanic temperature variability from solar variability on time scales of less than centuries then a lot of problems are solved. But am I right ?

“tallbloke (00:44:04) :
I think a better electrical analogy is that of a resistor with a solar panel and a capacitor in circuit.
The sun heats the resistor through the solar panel (sea surface mixed layer) which dissipates it’s heat into the ocean, and when the sun goes quiet, the the capacitor discharges (el nino) due to the lowered resistance of the cooled down resistor. The ocean releases it’s heat energy slowly, losing net energy until the sun gets active again.
The atmospheric processes described by this study may be second order effects which modulate the level of insolation to the solar panel/sea surface”
A couple of problems with that:
1) Whatever happens in the sea/surface mixed layer appears to involve an increase in the evaporation rate whenever more energy is added and there is a constant background flow of energy from water to air so dissipation downward from that layer appears to be negligible.
2) El Nino and La Nina events are not aligned with active or quiet periods of solar activity, Indeed they are as often in opposition to changes in solar activity. 1940 to 1975 the oceanic cycles were opposing an active sun. 1975 to 2000 they were supplementing an active sun. Now we have a quiet sun supplementing negative ocean cycles.
3) The oceanic effect on air temperatures is far far bigger than solar effects so the solar changes are insignificant in comparison for periods of less than several hundred years. At most the solar variability just provides a background trend behind the changes induced by the oceans.
I do agree however that the article at the head of this thread is more likely dealing with second order events which can supplement or offset the primary oceanic driver. I have already conceded that point as regards the Svensmark hypothesis.

The other links
http://www.theozonehole.com/ look around!
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
This last one has 2 little plots showing ozone peak during 1988 and 2002
However, 1988 does not correspond to a peak of tsi
tsi peaks (start of tsi decline) are 1992 and 2002
or looking at the peak flattening off from the rise 1989 an 2000
And the peaks are significantly less than the ozone depletion drop.
So the 6% increase in ozone cannot be said to have increased ozone significantly. The o3 depletion is much more significant.

What?
You mean that the Solar-Earth connection is electrical?

tallbloke (03:03:58)
Below the thermocline, the water is cold and changes temp only slowly from there to the sea bed by ~4C, but this is the vast majority of the bulk of the ocean, and it contains a vast but very slowly changing amount of energy,
OK lets assume the vast bulk of the ocean changes from 4degC to 5degC. This will require a phenomenal input of energy.
We no have 5degC water sitting at 700m. How is this going to change the temperature at the surface after 15 years?
There is no heat pump to pump this vast store of energy up to a higher temperature. There is no vortex tube to separate the hot molecules from the cold. So if the 5 degC water surfaces then the world surely cools? Unless it surfaces at the poles!
If you look at the ocean as a solid block with one side of the block dissipating energy to give a temperature of 4 deg C and the other receiving energy to cause a stable 17Deg C then if the 4 changes to 5 the 17 will change to almost 18degC. This I can understand. But this requires the surface to be tightly coupled with the depths. This has problem that the cold side is not radiating heat (where will it go?) so will tend to equalise with the hot side
this is not happening. The cold stays were it is and the waters above stay happily warmer i.e. the warm less dense floats on the cold more dense
As far as i am aware energy can only be store in water in the form of heat or motion. I do not understand how TSI can be converted to deap sea currents. This leaves heat as the storage. The ocean is cold low down and as far as I can see there is no simple way of pumping the lower cold to an upper hot.
Can you explain please the TSI storage mechanism of deep ocean? Thanks

Reading through the highly diverse threads currently running here, it must be apparent to even the most partisan that with regards to climate science we don’t know far more than we do know.
Tonyb

D.T. (18:54:05) :
Additional info from the same place:
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
News Release, August 27, 2009
Scientists Uncover Solar Cycle, Stratosphere, and Ocean Connections
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarcycle2.jsp
The title is misleading since they haven’t uncovered anything that wasn’t already known or used before, long range forecast wise.

So the ‘voltage’ is the constant(ish) insolation.
The collector current is how much heat gets through to the tropical ocean (to all depths).
The ‘base voltage’ with the high amplification is the amount of ITCZ Cu-Nims. High ITCZ activity both reflects incoming heat but also strips heat from the tropical ocean surface to redistribute. Low activity allows high salinity warm water to sink while surface waters are blown over by easterly trades.
The ‘cap’ to these ITCZ Cu-Nims is the temperature inversion at the tropopause but they punch a long way into the stratosphere by sheer vertical momentum.
I find it credible that relatively little energy in the stratosphere could seriously affect Willis’s heat-pump.

This is going to be interesting . For the very first time there are instruments in place, that might, just might, be able to measure how the sun and the oceans and the atmosphere interact to produce earths climate. If the sun stays relatively dormant, it will be most interesting to see how Ocean currents and temperatures react. Almost as fun as it will be to watch the warmists spit and sputter and try to explain the sun away.

A few points:
1. The change toal solar irradiance is double the frequently quoted 0.1%. The composite ACRIM record reached a value of 1368.3 w/m2 in 1979 and fell to 1365 in 1984 – a range of 0.24%.
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/files/BIGw02-sunspots-and-solar-irradiance.gif.gif
2. Cosmic radiation varies by about 60% over a solar cycle.
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/files/BIGw04-sunspots-and-cosmic-radiation.gif.gif
3. To show the effects of Milankovitch cycles values of radiation are generally quoted for 65N in July. The variation in whole earth/whole year radiation due to these cycles is much smaller, 0.7 % maximum and less for most cycles. This change is enough to drag the earth out of an ice age or send it into one.
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/files/BIGw01-milankovitch—cycles.gif.gif
In other words, there is evidence that solar cycles are more “powerful” than the 0.1% figure suggests and also that small changes in radiation can have big effects.

“tallbloke:
Most of the rest will escape during runs of low solar cycles when the sunspot count is averaging less than ~40, and during the negative phases of the ~60 year ocean cycles which imperfectly but convincingly (to me and some others) correlate with phases in cyclic planetary motions and the concomitant reversals in earth’s length of day.”
Energy release from the oceans would be highest during positive ocean cycles because that is when the resistor effect weakens and energy is released faster to the air. Negative ocean cycles occur when the resistor effect strengthens which slows down the release of energy so the air cools but ocean energy content increases (subject to solar input remaining high enough).
Otherwise your ideas seem logical and I look forward to future verification or otherwise. Something makes the oceans behave the way they do and their behaviour is fundamental to climatology. No one seems to have any better ideas at the moment having ignored the oceans as climate drivers since CO2 was chosen as the favoured culprit about 20 years ago.

This was actually published in SCIENCE???
Gosh, those editors and peer reviewers must be slipping… After all, isn’t the science supposed to be “settled”? 🙂

Hmm. No response to A.E.Douglas, and poor bill can’t seem to get his mind around anything other than Co2 driven warming ( like many pro-AGWr’s). Admitting you don’t know can be very difficult. I know that none of us knows, as TonyB (04:47:12) succinctly pointed out. Stephen Wilde, I like your “resistor” analogy and had not seen your reference to it in the thread that you mentioned, but will give credit where credit is due. Judging by the responses, perhaps the resistor analogy is a closer approximation than some other explanations. Just curious as to Anthony’s thoughts on the resistor idea.

Stephen Wilde (06:09:30) Perhaps these links will help
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-167950.html
Electrons in a wire do not travel at the speed of light but the electrical signal does. The voltage wave is not delayed by the resistor significantly.
Heat is generated “instantly” that a voltage is presented across the resistor.
the oceans provide the ‘resistor’ which either reflects away, converts to latent heat by evaporation or absorbs all that solar energy.
resistors do not reflect nor do they have latent heat – but I’ll let that pass
oceanic resistor it is the lengthening of wavelength which results from slowing down that generates heat energy whereas in the case of a normal resistor it is the reduction in voltage which results from slowing down.
Slowing down – no
conversion of UV to heat which then radiates as LW IR is not slowing down both electromagnetic waves travel near light speed (slower in water of course).
The power lost by both those processes has to remain in the system somewhere and I suggest heat energy in both cases.
There is no loss in conversion of UV to heat – what goes into the ocean as UV gets absorbed and generates heat (Just as the TSI instrument on the satellite does) This heat radiates in the long wave infra red (this is what is picked up by thermal imaging cameras which are sensitive to a range of frequencies and by satellite radar sensors). This heat stays in the system for as long as the thermal resistance allows (a thermos flask has a very high thermal resistance and will keep contents at constant temperature – A heat pipe has an ultra low thermal resistance as it is patially a fluid transport system – liquid boils in the hot end travels down the tube to condense at the cold end to be wicked back as a liquid to the heat, berillium oxide is a very low thermal resistance, solid heat conductor and was often used in power RF transistors)
The flow of currents in the ocean will be complex – water will conduct heat (not great) convect heat (better) or can move transfering its heat load elsewhere. It can vapourise removing quantities of heat as in the heat pipe with rain providing the return path of the liquid.
Considering the ocean to be a resistor does not add to the understanding of TSI to ocean heat storage in my opinion.
And I still cannot see how you are going to get all that energy stored as heat at 4degC to heat the surface at 17 degC.
tallbloke (04:44:55) :. It is well known that very cold water from the deep upwells off the south american west coast during la nina. I invite him to think about what this cold water from the deep is replaced by
That cold water will be replaced by whatever water is close by which could be hotter or cooler. Assume it is hotter, then that cool water at the next upwelling will also be hotter. And all this hotter and cooler water intermingling will surely make the deep oceans as warmer. So why does it stay at 4C? Is there a loss of heat down there somewhere?

What is this transistor of which you speak? The grid of the triode which controls the great surges of energy is actually the low level cloud over the oceans. tweak that and you can vary climate. Cosmic rays, variation in solar energy, aerosol pollution, farming pollution and dust, oil pollution of the ocean surface reducing aerosol production, all these are connected to the grid. Tiny change in, large change out: amplifier.
Whippersnappers can google ‘thermionic valves’ …
JF

D.T. (18:54:05)
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarcycle2.jsp

“”The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. “Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades.””
Note the timescale he sets.

Stephen Wilde: 3) Just as with the AGW warmers they rely on a positive feedback. In this case they call it ‘positive back coupling’ as opposed to the water vapour feedback process of the warmers. The trouble is that all observations show that the climate system is always sharply negative otherwise the long term stability we see would have been lost long ago.
Stephen, would you please explain positive and negative feedbacks more fully for me? And why or how our climate system is always sharply negative?
Thanks in advance.

If this resistor analogy it is generalized it would take us to an electrical climate, which is involved anyway, as before raining clouds discharge its electricity. Then vegetation when present changes local weather, increasing precipitation (facilitating discharges?). Trees have also a capacitance…and so on.
The sun is involved here too in many ways.

bill (08:33:22)
I am beginning to see the technical points that you take issue with but it doesn’t detract from the basic submission.
If the oceans convert ALL the UV to longwave then that is just like a resistor that converts ALL the energy entering it to heat energy so that nothing comes out the other side. So what, it’s still a resistor.
I know a resistor does not reflect energy nor convert energy to latent heat but the ocean does. I was implying that the resistor analogy only applied to the energy left over after those processes had drawn off the vast bulk of the energy from the sun.
TSI as a whole becomes irrelevant. It is only the solar energy that gets past the evaporating region near the water surface that adds to the ocean energy content. It is the degree of variation in that energy alone that matters and not the variation in TSI as a whole. As it happens the variability in the class of solar energy that can enter the water to the requisite depth is much higher than that of TSI as a whole but leave that for another day.
I take the slowing down point but it isn’t essential and I have seen it described elsewhere as a slowing down of the energy flow through a resistor but no matter.
In any event you say this:
“conversion of UV to heat which then radiates as LW IR is not slowing down, both electromagnetic waves travel near light speed (slower in water of course)”
I know that all electromagnetic radiation always travels at near the speed of light whatever the wavelength. That is directly analogous to the current entering and the current leaving a resistor. Both travel at the same speed going in and coming out despite the reduction in voltage. It is only whilst the energy is travelling through the resistor that the idea of slowing down becomes valid even if not technically accurate. Anyway you do accept that the speed is reduced in the water which is all that I am saying. The speed difference is miniscule but reflects the ongoing conversion of energy from shortwave to longwave and the consequent release of heat within the water.
The point is that energy entering the oceans from the sun is converted from shortwave to longwave thereby generating heat (more vibration of the water molecules ) and the oceans then vary the rate of supply of that longwave into the air and in the process the ocean heat content varies independently of solar input. Thus, critically, the issue of ocean heat content can be decoupled from solar variations and all the protestations about the inadequacy of solar variations to account for observed climate changes come to nought.
You correctly say this:
“The flow of currents in the ocean will be complex – water will conduct heat (not great) convect heat (better) or can move transfering its heat load elsewhere. It can vapourise removing quantities of heat as in the heat pipe with rain providing the return path of the liquid.”
It is that variability within the oceans and within the hydrological cycle that changes the rate of energy release to the air on multidecadal timescales. I propose that additionally such oceanic variability is capable of swamping solar variations in energy supply over considerable timescales.
The degree of such oceanic variability is sufficient to account for all observed climate change so far observed without involving CO2. The sun just provides a much longer term background trend.
The oceans are best described as a variable resistor.

George E Smith (10:56:33)
Thank you.
I see that if the oceans have 100% efficiency in dealing with the incoming solar energy which gets deep enough then the oceans cannot be a variable resistor but they would still be analogous to a resistor.
Attention then has to shift to the variability of the limited quantities of energy in the limited wavelengths that do get deep enough combined with the variable rate of release of that energy to the air and the time scales involved.
More thought required but I still think there is something in it as a result of observed oceanic behavioiur.

I think I can square the circle.
The oceans may not be a variable resistor in so far as the level of resistance is concerned but they are a resistor.
The effectiveness of the oceanic resistor in building up or dissipating ocean energy content depends on a very variable rate of energy release to the air.
The oceans may be 100% effective at converting the energy they do receive to longwave IR but they vary greatly as to how long they can hold on to it.
That is where the apparent disjunction arises between the smallness of solar variability and the much larger swings in ocean energy content and global air temperatures.

Re: Mike Abbott (12:33:57)
Mike, let’s keep in mind the social context in which these authors operate. (For example, what does one need to be doing in that field to be taken seriously by peers?)
Read between the lines here:
“With the help of increased computing power and improved models, as well as observational discoveries, we are uncovering more of how the mechanisms combine to connect solar variability to our weather and climate.” – Meehl.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/solarcycle2.jsp
These guys aren’t playing all their cards at once. The funding train might easily be persuaded to outlast their careers.

Wow, it’s great being ignored. Thanks everyone. Invariant (13:21:28), great post. bill(08:33:22) has done a lot of hand waving and tried to marginalize the analogy, yet has presented no better ideas. Typical. Never once has anyone mentioned that this is supposed to represent the atmosphere perfectly, just a loose idea of what it behaves like over all. In general it is a good analogy. Without a doubt, it is a very complex system. No illusions about that. I can see why so many people are lurkers and do not contribute to the conversation.

Sorry guys, typing error in the equations for the time constant,
tau ~ V * rho * cp / lambda
Here V is volume, rho is density, cp specific heat capacity and lambda the thermal conductivity. I have two more observations,
1. The transient heat transfer (convective cooling or heating) provided by MIT is actually a more realistic analogy as is describes convection which is more important for the fluid in the oceans and the air.
2. In the analogy provided by MIT, both the resistor and the capacitor is needed to calculate the time constant tau=R*C. Thus, the best analogy is both a capacitor and a resistor! So in a sense you were all correct.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node129.html
Sorry for the confusion.

Leif Svalgaard (15:21:34) :
“Thus is the standard nonsense. UV is 105 W/m2 vs. total TSI 1361 W/m2. 7% [mean of 5 and 8] of UV is 105*0.07=8 W/m2. TSI only varies 1.5 W/m2, and UV is but a small part of TSI.”
Leif you say UV varies 8w/m2 but then say TSI only varies 1.5w/m2??? I am a little confused by that statement when you have a starting number and it is 8w/m2 either it varies by that or it does not. Can you be more clear, does UV vary 8w/m2 or 7% or 1.5w/m2?

Mike Abbott (12:33:57) :
Geoff Sharp (16:38:09) :
Are you reading this part clearly Leif? Shoots holes in your argument on another thread.
I don’t need to defend Leif (he is more than capable of defending himself), but I have read nothing in this press release that “shoots holes” in anything Leif has ever argued. First of all, you are basing your claim on a press release about a study that nobody has actually read yet. WUWT readers frequently jump to conclusions based on articles about studies (as opposed to the studies themselves) and I have pointed this out previously. Secondly, the findings of the study are based entirely on computer simulations. The “evidence” they present is the output of computer models. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Third, Stephen Wilde has already raised some serious concerns about their theory. Critical analysis of their actual methodology will likely raise more.
The researchers have proposed an interesting mechanism for solar amplification, but until it is proven by actual data, it is just an interesting and maybe promising theory. One final question: Are Svensmark’s theory and the one described in this article mutually exclusive?
As stated Mike the discussion was on another thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/#comment-179258
The main point I was discussing is that there is more to the Sun/Earth climate link than 0.1% TSI variations that Leif continually states. Different bands of the UV spectrum vary by differing amounts greater than the 0.1% over the cycle and that all is not known in this area, also the Svensmark theory has to be considered (separately).
Leif has stated the science is settled in this area….I disagree.

Leif Svalgaard (15:21:34) :
“The ultraviolet radiation share varies much more strongly than the other shares in the spectrum, i.e. by five to eight per cent, and that forms more ozone” explains Katja Matthes.”
“Thus is the standard nonsense. UV is 105 W/m2 vs. total TSI 1361 W/m2. 7% [mean of 5 and 8] of UV is 105*0.07=8 W/m2. TSI only varies 1.5 W/m2, and UV is but a small part of TSI.”
The maximum sensitivity of the upper stratospheric temperature response is of
about 0.16K per 1% change in solar radiation at 205 nm eg Hood and Zhou, 1998.

Leif Svalgaard (15:21:34) :
“Thus is the standard nonsense. UV is 105 W/m2 vs. total TSI 1361 W/m2. 7% [mean of 5 and 8] of UV is 105*0.07=8 W/m2. TSI only varies 1.5 W/m2, and UV is but a small part of TSI.”
If your numbers are right that equation might work if we are considering the full UV spectrum. But it does not apply if we are looking at specific wave lengths which make up that spectrum.

Leif Svalgaard (15:21:34) :
“Thus is the standard nonsense. UV is 105 W/m2 vs. total TSI 1361 W/m2. 7% [mean of 5 and 8] of UV is 105*0.07=8 W/m2. TSI only varies 1.5 W/m2, and UV is but a small part of TSI.”
Do I understand that when UV increases, then some other portion of the total spectrum decreases? This is the only way I can see that UV varying by 8W/m^2 is consistent with TSI varying by only 1.5W/m^2.

Thanks to my critics here I can now refine my propositions as follows:
1)The oceans behave similarly to an electrical resistor in that they receive solar shortwave energy, convert it to infra red longwave and generate a higher temperature in the process because that infra red longwave is then represented by greater vibration of the water molecules.
2)The oceans behave unlike an electrical resistor in that they can retain that energy within themselves by moving the energy around between oceanic molecules for very variable lengths of time before it is released to the air above.
3)That retention of energy is merely part of the one way flow of energy from sun to sea to air to space and so the energy cannot be ‘held’ in the conventional sense because a reduction in incoming energy will immediately alter the balance between incoming and outgoing energy and any surplus in the oceans will start to decline.
4) The oceans do not slow down the speed of electromagnetic energy but they do slow down the transmission of that energy through the Earth system by altering the rate at which it is released to the air.
5)The oceans behave like a capacitor in the way they can build up and release a ‘charge’ of heat energy to the air above.
6) The oceans behave unlike a capacitor in that instead of smoothing out the flow of power they instead introduce large discontinuities in the flow by intermittently accelerating and decelerating the flow of energy into the air.
7) It is the irregularity in the release of the flow of solar energy to the air that creates the apparently large discrepancy between the very small solar variability and the much larger energy budget changes observed in climate change.
8) The oceans do not ‘amplify’ solar variability in the usual sense because no increase in total energy can be effected. Instead, the oceans create their own discontinuities in the flow of solar energy through the Earth system and that involves both amplification and suppression of the solar signal rather than simple amplification.
9) Once the oceans introduce such discontinuities in the energy flow then the only way the Earth system can remain stable is for the air circulation systems to make opposing (negative) adjustments. It must be successful in doing so or we would have no oceans.
Suggestions for further refinement will be welcomed.

I have a quetion for Dr Svalgaard.
Let us assume that the average magnitude of the heat energy transfer from the sun is more or less constant over the last centuries. Now if we further assume that although the exact physical mechanism is not yet known, the sun earth relationship can be viewed as a forced oscillator. Think of the analogy with pendulum or an electrical oscillatory circuit that is being externally driven. In a forced oscillator, it is important to know the resonance frequency of the system being driven but also the frequency of the external driving force. Now, let us assume that the earth’s eigenfrequency (if such a notion is at all meaningful) is somewhat shorter than 11 years. Then it will follow that the earth will tend to store more heat during shorter sun cycles as an oscillator oscillates better when is being driven closer to its resonance frequency. May this explain the Science paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) where longer cycles tend to have a cooling effect? If this is the case, may we see a somewhat larger temperature decrease during the Eddy Minimum the next couple of years than previously expected from studying heat transfer from the sun only? (assuming that this is constant)
[Obviously the earth may have many different resonant or eigenfrequencies, but still the analogy above may be useful to cover the most predominant effects.]
[[Surely the forced oscillator is a toy model]]

but weather will set up temperature inversions with height (air temp. goes up with increasing height for a thousand feet or more), which indeed stifle convection and lead to cloudless heat-waves.
A temperature inversion during a humidity induced heat wave would require the air to be even hotter at altitude.
I very much doubt this occurs.

Some of my replies below may be inconsequential. But some of your statements are just not valid! Sorry!
Stephen Wilde (00:27:51) :
1)The oceans behave similarly to an electrical resistor in that they receive solar shortwave energy, convert it to infra red longwave and generate a higher temperature in the process because that infra red longwave is then represented by greater vibration of the water molecules
The solar input is converted to heat. Heat generates long wave IR.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/wien.html#c3 (excellent stuff have a look)
20C is equivalent to 9885.72nm is equivalent to 30612.2449GHz
4C is equivalent to 10456.43nm is equivalent to 28690.47619GHz
2)The oceans behave unlike an electrical resistor in that they can retain that energy within themselves by moving the energy around between oceanic molecules for very variable lengths of time before it is released to the air above.
Conduction is fast. The oceans can retain heat by moving it away from somewhere where it can dissipate otherwise it is simply in balance with heat loss vs energy input. If 5deg C water is surrounded by 4degC water the two are continually try to equalise – in a static (is this possible?) situation there will be a continual transfer of energy across the 4/5C boundry creating a graduated 5C to 4C gradient. As time progresses this boundary will grow in width until all the water is at the average temp.
3) ok
4) ok (just about)
5)The oceans behave like a capacitor in the way they can build up and release a ‘charge’ of heat energy to the air above.
Capacitors store and release energy continually. If the voltage on the capacitor is less than the voltage feeding it (via an impedance) the capacitor will store energy. should the voltage feeding it fall below the capacitor terminal voltage the capacitor will discharge and loose energy. Your termonology seems to suggest a sudden release of energy to the air – this will not be the case.
If a capacitor is discharged then fluctuations in the charging voltage will not extract energy from the capacitor unless those fluctuations fall below the voltage to whic the capacitor is charged. All that will happen is that the energy flowing INTO the capacitor will rise and fall. With sea temperature if a hot day inputs energy to the sea and raises the surface layer to 20C then the next sun is occluded and the air temp falls below 20C the small amount of energy in the sea surface will momentarily keep the air warmer. Your single capacitor ocean will not work this way!
6) The oceans behave unlike a capacitor in that instead of smoothing out the flow of power they instead introduce large discontinuities in the flow by intermittently accelerating and decelerating the flow of energy into the air.
This is just simply incorrect the energy is always in balance at the surface. You still have not said how water heated from 4C to 5C at depth in the ocean is going to heat the air at 17C above.
7) It is the irregularity in the release of the flow of solar energy to the air that creates the apparently large discrepancy between the very small solar variability and the much larger energy budget changes observed in climate change.
see 6 response
8) The oceans do not ‘amplify’ solar variability in the usual sense because no increase in total energy can be effected. Instead, the oceans create their own discontinuities in the flow of solar energy through the Earth system and that involves both amplification and suppression of the solar signal rather than simple amplification.
How?????
9) Once the oceans introduce such discontinuities in the energy flow then the only way the Earth system can remain stable is for the air circulation systems to make opposing (negative) adjustments. It must be successful in doing so or we would have no oceans.
explain using scientific principles please.

During the time that UV has been measured by satellites there have been 2 peaks of TSI
If there was a significant increase in UV during TSI peaks then these would show up on the satellite data:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Thishas 2 little plots showing ozone peak during 1988 and 2002
However, 1988 does not correspond to a peak of tsi
tsi peaks (start of tsi decline) are 1992 and 2002
or looking at the peak flattening off from the rise 1989 an 2000

Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
I can understand your concern about the Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper
(1991) – in particular since it is now cited 473 times according to Google Scholar. What the future may bring is not easy to tell, but surely the paper must be regarded as seminal in the discussion the last two decades. In my career as a scientist and engineer I have learned the hard way that one has to distinguish between what is possible to calculate and what is not possible to calculate. I have this beautiful quote from the Norwegian author Jens Bjørneboe that reveals this clearly,
”Man vet hvor en planet befinner seg om tolv år, fire måneder og ni dager. Men man vet ikke hvor en sommerfugl vil være fløyet hen om et minutt.”
— Jens Bjørneboe
This leads us to another butterfly-effect that is the famous and elegant metaphor introduced by Lorenz,
“When our results concerning the instability of nonperiodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic, they indicate that prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
— Edward N. Lorenz
http://www.cc.uoa.gr/~pji/nonlin/lorenz.pdf
Most likely both the oscillations inside the sun and the oscillations in our climate are dominated by unpredictable buoyancy forces of the same nature as described in the famous Lorenz paper. Then what chance do we have to predict the climate? My initial analogy with a forced oscillator may not be so helpful either. In particular as most intrinsic oscillations in the sun and the oceans are obviously highly nonlinear. In software we can simulate such nonlinear oscillators with high precision. For example we can learn that tiny a butterfly can prolong the period of a relaxation oscillation indefinitely, just like the “transistor effect” proposed in the latest issue of Science by Meehl et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1114
But this cannot be used to predict anything; it is time yet again to mention that climate simulations lag so far behind experimental evidence that no one would blame you for believing that the two main sets of people that determine your climate future are living on two planets in separate solar systems light years away.
“True knowledge is when one knows the limitations of one’s knowledge.“

Leif Svalgaard (12:24:06)
It doesn’t matter how small the variation of the actual amount of energy involved is if it is sufficient to establish or maintain a trend.
The fundamental error that people commit is to deny the significance of small differences in a situation that relies on balance.
If someone cannot sell his house his loose change becomes critical to survival.

> It will be held up as a warning of how easily people will go along with bad science as long as it supports their views.
My definition of real science is when people do not know what they are trying to discover, because if they knew they would not need to discover it. Basically real scientists do not know what they are doing! So I think you are a little too hard on this Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper (1991). This field of science is probably not very well understood either, and to suggest new mechanisms in a “trial and error” manner can always be useful I think. For example if not only the amplitude but also the frequency is important, which is most common in the field of signal processing, then they would have made a major discovery. [This would, for example, make sense if the sun/earth is a forced oscillatory system.]

“Leif Svalgaard (13:59:09) :
Stephen Wilde (12:39:21) :
If someone cannot sell his house his loose change becomes critical to survival.
Hardly relevant. He can always sell his house if the price is low enough [it will surely exceed his loose pocket change.”
I meant in the sense that the capital in the house is not accessible in the same way that 99% or more of TSI has no effect on the ocean energy content.

Speaking of oscillations I said this in another thread:
“If ANY variability is present in the flow of energy from the sun it will be compounded when it interacts with the inevitable variability in a fluid surrounding the bulk of a planet and the more of that fluid the better.
Once an imbalance exists (and of course it always does) then oscillations in the flow of energy will be set up within the receiving fluid.
The issue then is as to how large those oscillations can get. I propose that the size of the oscillations is not significantly dependent on the variability of the sun. Rather it is primarily dictated by the properties of the air and the oceans or more particularly by the circulation systems in each.
One could liken it to the resonance qualities of a tuning fork.
So despite the solar variations of only 0.05K (or whatever it might be) the system adopts whatever scale of oscillation it’s internal characteristics are tuned to produce and we see in the real world just how much larger than the solar variation it can become.”

> Since sunspots can last for months, then suddenly dissappear. Are we seeing a charge/discharge cylce causing the amplification. Slow build up, fast release.
In physics this is called a relaxation oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxation_oscillator
Note that during the charging phase the oscillator is very sensitive for external forces. So the lack uf sunspots may extend or shorten the charging phase significantly.

As a licensed “ham”, I think this talk about the earth-sun system being analogous to an electronic circuit, with resonant oscillations, is a bit off-base. I seriously doubt that we know enough about the system to even attempt to calculate the resonant frequency. Remember that there are plenty of other energy storage systems besides electrical capacitors. A hot water bottle put in bed is one, and if you put a blanket on the bed, it will take longer to cool off. It seems to me that the earth’s energy balance is like a process responding to a controller with derivative action: that is, if there is an imbalance, it tries to control the move off set point with a proportional response; but if that does not correct things soon, the derivative action kicks in with an ever-increasing response. The fact that we don’t have big global runaways of more than a degree or so in a long period of time illustrates this point. We just don’t know how the controller works for our world. I do want to make one point about the ocean transferring energy to the atmosphere. This can only happen by radiation or conduction in situations where the water happens to be hotter than the air above it. I don’t know what percentage of the ocean or what percentage of time this is the case, but I think most of the heat transfer is by evaporation, which cools the ocean slightly and increases the water vapor in the atmosphere. Then when the water vapor condenses to rain, it gives up that heat to the atmosphere. Since the ocean has so much more heat content than the atmosphere, it acts as a huge flywheel to prevent rapid climate changes.

> They did that because using the amplitude gave the result that the temperature [and BTW, they used only Northern Hemisphere] preceded the sunspot numbers, i.e. we can predict solar activity from Earth’s climate.
Exactly! Thanks for all the helpful comments Dr. Svalgaard, this site is surely the most civilised place where different viewpoints can be discussed in a peaceful way! Yes, it is complete nonsense that temperature should somehow affect solar activity. But assuming that it is not nonsense and neither a coincidence that a long cycle seems to precede both weak cycles and a temperature drop, the actual effect should then be nearly instant compared to the slow transients usually observed in climate change. [Basically they “changed” the process from being more than instant to being just instant!]
However this is a little counter-intuitive due to the huge thermal mass of the oceans. But maybe the thermal mass is not that large after all and that it is only the upper part of the oceans that is relevant, then the “tau=R*C” time constant may be in the order of ~30 years meaning that we should see a significant drop after ~ 3 years. I think the Wolf number has been surprisingly low for nearly 3 years now, so we should expect a significant temperature drop any day now. If this does not happen the hypothesis may be falsified.
We surely live in interesting times.

Good point. The climate is so complex that any hypothesis can never be tested nor falsified. The big question then is whether climate research really science then? To summarize we
1. cannot observe the climate sufficiently accurately to feed a climate model with initial conditions,
2. cannot simulate the climate due to the limited computing power and the butterfly effect,
3. cannot test or falsify a climate model or hypothesis due the overall complexity of the system, and our limited ability to isolate the different contributions to climate change.
We can assume that we may actually see a temperature drop the start of this century exactly as we saw in the previous century when Titanic unfortunately hit the ice berg. But we can only think “here we go again” and suspect that something fishy is going on but scientific evidence is not possible at this point.

> Retired BChe (19:15:48)
> I do want to make one point about the ocean transferring energy to the atmosphere. This can only happen by radiation or conduction in situations where the water happens to be hotter than the air above it. I don’t know what percentage of the ocean or what percentage of time this is the case, but I think most of the heat transfer is by evaporation, which cools the ocean slightly and increases the water vapor in the atmosphere. Then when the water vapor condenses to rain, it gives up that heat to the atmosphere.
Although I spent nearly 10 years working with a commercial multiphase flow simulator I never became an expert. Too many subtle phenomena like bubbles and droplets and various phase transitions that counter-intuitively were altered by temperature and pressure transients. Nevertheless my hunch is that the description of BChe (19:15:48) seems accurate; it is evaporation that is the major heat transfer from the oceans to the air. But this is a slow process. Changing the overall temperature of the oceans from T0 to T1,
T(t) = T1 + [T0 – T1] exp(-t/tau),
may take very long time due to the large value of the time constant tau for the oceans. Thus the analogy with a huge flywheel that prevents rapid climate changes seems very useful.

Leif Svalgaard (00:35:50) :
Kevin Kilty (20:02:33) :
Do I understand that when UV increases, then some other portion of the total spectrum decreases?
Of course not. I was pointing out that the statement by the article that UV varies 5-8% is incorrect. The variation of UV can be no larger than (total variation of TSI = 1.5 W/m2)/(amount of UV=105 W/m2) = 1.5/105 = 1.5% and is actually less as some of the total variation is not in the UV.

OK, thanks Leif. The differing ways that we use English sometimes makes it difficult to identify a hypothetical statement versus a factual one. I had interpreted your statement regarding 8 W/m^2 as factual when you meant it to be hypothetical.

Two publications about the subject from Jeniffer’s site:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/global-cooling-has-begun-bob-foster/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/sunspots-just-part-of-the-story-fred-singer/

Hi Stephen Wilde,
I suspect that there may be some good physics in your flywheel analogy. First a flywheel has two types of energy, potential (P= mgh) and kinetic (K=½ mv²), and energy dissipation due to friction with air which may be either laminar or turbulent. Second, there is a beautiful analogy with both a thermal system and an electrical RLC circuit. Finally the thermal analogy of your flywheel covers the nifty fact that the oceans may be modelled as a system with a large thermal mass and the air as a system with a small thermal mass. [This is more than an analogy!] What is fascinating is that although the different analogies are completely different, the understanding and the equations are nearly the same.

A little off-topic but the most brilliant scientist we have alive today is probably Freeman Dyson. He is looking through the equations and has a clear understanding of the underlying physics – see New York Times:
“What Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga were doing was stylistically different, but it was all “fundamentally the same.””
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
He also said about climate models,
“The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in.”
He is probably right.

“”” Stephen Wilde (08:44:34) :
Geoff Sharp (04:54:51)
I tried to get at that point a while back but the replies were unhelpful. Either I was failing to get the point across or there was ‘avoidance’.
We all know that total TSI varies very little.
Of the TSI a lot gets reflected in the air or obstructed before it gets to the ocean surface. Of the portion that gets to the ocean surface much is reflected by the ocean surface and another portion fails to get past the region involved in evaporation.
Only a tiny portion of TSI actually gets deeply enough into the ocean to make any difference to ocean energy content and some wavelengths are more successful than others.
If one identifies the tiny proportion of the limited number of specific wavelengths that are able to affect ocean energy content we must find that it is only a tiny part of TSI. “””
I have no idea who wrote the above; or if it is joint authorship. If someone is citing someone else’s posting; it can be helpful to use some delimiter to identify who wrote what. In ordinary English Grammar that is often accomplished by using quotation marks (S/he said this” phooey !”)
I use this “”” Phooey ! “”” just to make it plainly obvious.
But as to the above writings by whomever; the observations are quite false.
First off, starting from a solar “constant” value of about 1366 W/m^2 in the mean earth orbit; by the time it reaches the surface it is about 1000 W/m^2, and that is for cloudless skies; so perhaps 25% is absorbed my the atmosphere (or scattered), and maybe 20% is due to water vapor, in the 750nm-4.0 micron region of the solar spectrum. So I wouldn’t call 25% “a lot”
Then there is this statement:- “”” Of the portion that gets to the ocean surface much is reflected by the ocean surface and another portion fails to get past the region involved in evaporation. “””
This is wrong on both counts. Water has a solar spectrum diffuse reflection coefficient of about 3%; it is only 2% for normal incidence. nobody would call 3% reflectance loss “much”.
Then there is that final other portion that doesn’t get past the surface “skin” that is involved in evaporation. Well the UV part of the spectrum is already highly attenuated before it reaches the surface, and yes it is absorbed relatively quickly, but the part of the spectrum that contains 99% of the ground level insolation penetrates readily into the se water; so in fact the bulk of the ocean incident solar energy IS captured in the ocean and converted to heat content of the ocean’s upper layers.
The very strong surface (skin) absorption of the ocean is reserved for the long wave IR emissions from the atmosphere (or clouds).
So it is quite incorrect to depict the oceans as the repository for only a small amount of the solar energy incident on the earth’s surface; they in fact collect most of it.
George

Combining “Retired BChe (19:15:48)” and “George E. Smith (17:22:43) we can state:
“The water vapor (from evaporation) produces the positive feedback warming (yes water vapor is a GHG; the most important one); and the subsequent cloud formation; (liquid and solid water), produces the negative feedback cooling via albedo enhancement, and ground level solar blocking. The combined effects of evaporation and precipitation (which must balance over time), maintain the cloud level that supports the earth’s mean temperature range. Most of the heat the ocean is transferring to the atmosphere is due to evaporation, which cools the ocean slightly and increases the water vapor in the atmosphere. Then when the water vapor condenses to rain, it gives up that heat to the atmosphere.”
We can only add that the air temperature transients are faster as the thermal mass in the air is small compared to the thermal mass in the oceans.