Guest Post by Bob Tisdale,
The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC. Refer to the gif animation, Figure 1, that shows the global OHC data from their June 2010 update (through March 2010) and from the most recent update and change (though June 2010). The revisions are considerable in many ocean basins. As described in their explanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations. (Refer to the NOAA FAQ webpage What is an XBT?) Immediately following Figure 1 is a link to a graph that shows the difference between the two global datasets, with the June 2010 update subtracted from the September 2010 update.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vhsta8.jpg
Figure 1 – Global
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2qi07s0.jpg
#########################
Table 1 shows the OHC linear trends (in Gigajoules/Square Meter per Decade) for the global and hemispheric data and for the individual ocean basin subsets. Also shown are the differences (the data from the September 2010 update MINUS the data from the June 2010 update) and the percent change (difference divided by June 2010 update). Note: the June 2010 update included data through March 2010 and the September update/change included data through June 2010, but Table 1 only compares linear trends for the datasets through March 2010. As shown in Table 1, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. There was a minor increase in North Pacific trend (4%), while there were considerable drops in the linear trends of the South Atlantic (23%), South Pacific (17%) and the Southern Ocean (32%).
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zx5boi.jpg
Table 1
Figure 2 is the gif animation that shows the Southern Ocean OHC data (South of 60S) before and after the September 2010 changes. Prior to the mid-2000s and the introduction of ARGO buoys, the original data (through March 2010) simply appeared to be the climatology with some data added occasionally when it was available. The updated data seems to emphasize that appearance.
http://i54.tinypic.com/111sabn.jpg
Figure 2 – Southern Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/fuqalc.jpg
#########################
And there is good reason for that appearance. Like Sea Surface Temperature datasets based on buoys and ship sensors, there is very little Southern Hemisphere data, at all depths, prior to the ARGO buoys era. Figures 3 through 6 show the 3-month data distribution maps for January through March of 1955, 1975, 1995 and 2005, at depths of zero meters (surface), 250 meters, 500 meters and 700 meters. South of 60S there was little data even in 2005. The maps are available through the NODC Temperature data distribution figures webpage.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2a8orcp.jpg
Figure 3
##############
http://i55.tinypic.com/aes9lg.jpg
Figure 4
##############
http://i54.tinypic.com/x6gaig.jpg
Figure 5
##############
http://i52.tinypic.com/k9ax3.jpg
Figure 6
##############
THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ON PAST POSTS ABOUT NATURAL OHC VARIATIONS
The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations in data that should be attributable to natural variations. For example: The tropical Pacific OHC data still drops during major El Niño events and partially rebounds during most of the La Niña events that follow, Figure 7. The major upward shifts occur during significant La Niña events, which is the recharge/overcharge mode for the tropical Pacific OHC. This, and the similar impact on other ocean basins, was discussed in the post ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data.
http://i52.tinypic.com/wbqt61.jpg
Figure 7
With the changes to the data, the OHC of the North Pacific north of 20N still drops from the late 1950s to the late 1980s, Figure 8, and then suddenly rises. This increase coincides with a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure. This was discussed in the post North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s.
http://i55.tinypic.com/v8o60i.jpg
Figure 8
The update/changes caused the OHC for most of the other basins to drop more than the North Atlantic OHC. Refer again to Table 1. This makes the contribution of the North Atlantic OHC to global OHC even greater. And much of the disproportionate rise in North Atlantic OHC is caused by Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), sea level pressure, and ENSO, as discussed in North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables. One cell of the gif animation in Figure 9 compares global and North Atlantic OHC. The increase in North Atlantic OHC dwarfs the global rise. The second cell in Figure 9 compares the North Atlantic OHC to the global data with the North Atlantic removed. It assumes the surface area of the North Atlantic is 15% of the global ocean surface area. Note the decrease in the global trends. With the North Atlantic, the global linear trend is 0.72 GJ/square meter per decade and without the North Atlantic, the “global” data linear trend drops to 0.043 GJ/square meter per decade. Also note how sharply the North Atlantic OHC has dropped since 2005. The North Atlantic is a major contributor to the flattening of global data in recent years.
http://i56.tinypic.com/2m2hq1v.jpg
Figure 9
GIF ANIMATIONS — BEFORE AND AFTER CHANGES
Figures 10 through 18 are gif animations that compare the NODC OHC data for the hemispheres and ocean basin subsets before and after the recent changes. I’ve also provided links to graphs of the differences, with the June 2010 data subtracted from the September 2010 data. They are provided without commentary.
http://i53.tinypic.com/aken3m.jpg
Figure 10 – Tropical Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34fo420.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/2zrks8x.jpg
Figure 11 – Northern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/22xonc.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2cy5vf5.jpg
Figure 12 – Southern Hemisphere
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2vaim1u.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/r91v7d.jpg
Figure 13 – North Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/dm9tas.jpg
#########################
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lcwcir.jpg
Figure 14 – South Atlantic
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2akfvaf.jpg
#########################
http://i56.tinypic.com/2n1t0fm.jpg
Figure 15 – Indian Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2gxfwvq.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dtdiyd.jpg
Figure 16 – North Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i56.tinypic.com/nx553a.jpg
#########################
http://i52.tinypic.com/2u4313m.jpg
Figure 17 – South Pacific
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i51.tinypic.com/5yz3sw.jpg
#########################
http://i51.tinypic.com/n5lmp1.jpg
Figure 18 – Arctic Ocean
Link to Graph of the Difference:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2d7h387.jpg
#########################
SOURCE
The NODC OHC data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
(Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.)
Fernando (in Brazil) says: “Any direct involvement in the work of the Pielke’s Family.”
In what way would the Pielkes have been involved?
“Thanks to Dr Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of KNMI for creating and maintaining Climate Explorer.”
I second that. KNMI Climate Explorer is a very important website.
Neville says: “I can only agree that Bob allows we slower members a chance to read and understand more info as it becomes available, BUT I wish a short summary and conclusion was part of the package.”
A cut-and-paste summary:
1, the National Oceanographic Data Center has updated itsOCEAN HEAT CONTENT (OHC) data.
2, The update to the OHC data also included major changes, which have reduced the long-term rise in OHC.
3, the linear trend for the Northern Hemisphere OHC data only dropped approximately 2%, while the Southern Hemisphere linear trend dropped about 16%. And the linear trend globally dropped about 9%.
4, The recent changes to the OHC data have not had noticeable effects on the timing of the major variations…that should be attributable to natural variations.
Neville, Dr T G Watkins, and Richard Verney: I’ll try to include summaries in future posts.
This is one of the most interesting and well researched posts at WUWT , thanks Bob T,I would like to hear your thoughts on how much or what percentage,Earth’s core heat from >”increased” 1 km), implying that ~24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered. .(END QUOTE)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029874.shtml
———————————-
Three million underwater volcanoes
http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
———————————-
Global freshwater not showing an upward trend,shows it is not greenhouse related.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml
———————————-
Seismic activity FIVE TIMES what it was twenty years ago.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=91&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=e74f2b44346969a76f0b812c3fe4d57c
———————————-
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
———————————-
Cumulative moment release of earthquakes in the Harvard CMT catalog
http://www.iris.iris.edu/sumatra/moment_second.htm
———————————-
Long term Seismic activity trend
Monthly number of volcanic earthquakes at Nyamuragira, 1960-92
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0203-02=&volpage=var
———————————-
VOLCANOS COMBINED DAYS OF ACTIVITY INCREASE
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/volcanis.gif
———————————-
Increased tectonic activity
http://www.nov55.com/volcan.html
“”” bob says:
October 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hmmm, I wonder what the ratio of mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is to the mass of water is the oceans. I mean, I’m just wondering. It’s really quite amazing that the reemission of photons from CO2 could warm the atmosphere, which, in turn warms the oceans (in such a short period of time). I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention in my heat transfer classes when they covered that. Boy, those must be some really energetic photons. Oh wait, no I have that wrong. It must be all about the “positive feedbacks” — you know, perpetual motion, cold fusion, that sort of thing. “””
Well bob it is a mistake to think of “reemission” of photons from CO2.
The lifetime of the excited state of CO2 caused by the surface (or atmospheric) emitted LWIR photons captured by the CO2, is much longer than the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere; so the CO2 molecule almost never gets to re-emit the photon it absorbed. Instead when the CO2 molecule next collides with an N2 or O2 molecule or perhaps even and Ar atom, there will be mechanical energy and momentum exchanged between the two molecules, and some of that captured energy will become increased kinetic e3nergy of the molecule it collides with. So the captured energy is basically thermalized by collisionsso there isn’t the energy left to re-emit the captured photon.; even if such a transition is allowed.
In the much rarer atmosphere of the stratosphere, the mean free path between molecules is long enough that re-emission can occur. But since the molecular density is so low up there the amount of energy involved is small. Most of the intercepted LWIR radiant energy is thermalized, and becomes mechanical motion of a Temperature increased atmopsheric molecule.
The warmer atmosphere eventually emits a thermal continuum LWIR spectrum that is characteristic of the Temperature.
The original Jeans calculation of the radiation spectrum emitted by heated matter, calculates the total number of modes of oscillation in some mass of matter (say a mole); whcih is some factor times Avogadro’s number of degrees of freedom, and then a certain energy is assigned to each mode of oscillation. In Jeans Calculation the energy was assumed to have any continuous value. The result was Jeans formula predicts an infinite amount of energy at very short wavelengths; known as the “Ultra-Violet Catastrophy”.
Planck’s innovation was to quantize the amount of energy per degree of freedom rather than let it have any continuous value; and that is what eliminated the UV catastrophe and gave us the Planck Black Body Raiiation law, and the start of quantum Physics. Now I’m just roughing this out since I am writing from memory that goes way back to the Plasticine era. I’ll let the PhD Physicists dress it up properly.
But an important thing to note, is that neither Jeans earlier work; nor Planck’sd erivation involves in any way; and atomic structure or electron orbitals; or anything to do with the energy states of any atom; it is quite independent of material atomic structure.
So in particular it isn’t capable of predicting any line spectrum of a similar nature to that emitted by atoms or ions in excited states.
It is a result of the mechanical energy of atomic or molecular motions; that we describe as “heat”. I’m given to understand that in the Classical Physics the origin of the thermal radiation simply results from the acceleration of electric charges.
A moving charge (constant velocity) comprises and electric current; which in turn creates a magnetic field, along with the electric field that results from the charge itself. So a varying current (and magnetic field) is the result of electric charge undergoing acceleration; and classical theory predicts that it must radiate energy.
That is exactly how radio antennas work to radiate EM waves.
You could take a superconducting antenna wire at near zero K, and apply a varying AC current to it, and you should get electromagnetic waves radiated form that antenna; even though it is basically at zero K.
In all materials above zero Kelvins the thermal motion of the atoms or molecules results in accelerated charge and classical theory predicts a continuously radiated field.; solely as a copnsequence of the accelerated charge.
The whole reason for the Stanford Electron accelerator being linear; rather than circular, is that high energy electrons running around a circle are in continuous acceleration (remember Velocity is a vector so a change in direction is an acceleration) and the electron stream would constantly lose energy to radiation; which would eventually limit the energy of the electrons, since they would lose all the energy you give them during the next trip around the ring.. It’s also the reason the LHC is so damn big, because even heavy particles at those energies will radiate while going in circles so they have to be big circles.
So it is a mistake to believe that gases like the atmosphere don’t emit thermal black body like radiation; they do, and it isn’t because of electrons jumping orbitals in the atom; but just due to the acceleration of thermal motions) mostly at the time of collisions.
Well the PhDs can sanitize this for you but this is the general idea.
Thanks Bob.
I guess I would say I have little faith in the pre-Argo-2003 data but …
… we can translate some of the data into:
– 0.116C of warming from 1955 to 2008 in the 0-3000 metre ocean (to be revised downward slightly based on the new data).
– about 0.2 Watts/m2 going into the 0 – 700 metre ocean from 1955 to 2003 and a slight negative -0.06 Watts/m2 coming out from 2003 to 2008/10 based on the Knox and Douglas, Loehle, Willis papers from 2003 to 2008/2010.
– about 0.1 Watts/m2 going into the 700 – 3000 metre ocean (based on the 2005 Levitus paper);
– about 0.05 Watts/m2 going into the 3000+ metre ocean (based on the Purkey and Johnson paper we recently discussed).
Remember we are looking for 0.8 to 0.9 Watts/me going into the oceans/glacial melt so that leaves us about 0.5 Watts/m2 short.
And we should not expect the deep oceans to be warming right now and bypassing the 0-700 metre ocean. So, from 2003 to 2008/2010, the ocean warming/absorption of GHG warming is not happening.
Thanks Bob.
FYI, here is the Python code for my naive calculation of the temperature change based on a change in GJ of 0.4 .
Here’s the output.
Both my naive calculation and Levitus et al (2005) give a very small change in energy compared with the total. In both cases, the temperature change seems to me to be well within a reasonable value for measurement error.
I guess my question is: How much importance should we give the energy accumulation in the ocean? Can we just treat the ocean as a giant (roughly) constant temperature heat sink?
Anyway, if we’re going to have runaway global warming, the atmosphere will have to do it independently of the oceans. There simply isn’t enough energy to warm the ocean very much over a hundred years.
Call me a sceptic, but this revision looks a bit like the revision of Hansen’s data shown on WUWT recently.
Flatten out the past variability, the 2005 – 2006 peak gets reduced, all to enhance to 2010 peak, and make it look more like continuous rise to 2010.
Improves the overall narative.
Barry Day says: “I would like to hear your thoughts on how much or what percentage,Earth’s core heat from >”increased” 1 km), implying that ~24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered. .(END QUOTE)”
I haven’t studied the papers or webpages you linked and can’t comment.
Bob Tisdale said:
“Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?”
The sun is highest overhead at the equator and therefore imparting more energy to the surface per unit of area. That is why the equator is warmer than the poles. As one moves poleward the angle of incidence decreases and less energy is imparted to the surface per unit of area.
It follows that cloudiness over an area near the equator would block more incoming energy than the same degree of cloudiness further away from the equator unless you can show that cloud densities and amounts also change to negate the effect.
So if the jets and the ITCZ move poleward the skies will become clearer over more ocean surfaces and more energy will be able to enter the oceans from solar visible and shortwave radiation which penetrates up to 200 metres.
The converse applies if the jets and the ITCZ move equatorward again.
It is the latitudinal movement of the clouds that changes the global net downward radiation at the surface and the clouds have a greater effect the nearer the equator they are situated because of the higher angle of incidence of solar radiation onto any clouds and into the oceans when clouds are not present.
A cloud at the equator will look brighter than the same cloud situated more poleward because it is reflecting more energy. That would make a difference to the Earthshine numbers and it is apparent that from the Earthshine project that the albedo of the Earth did start to increase from the late 90s which is when the jets started moving equatorward again.
So what difference in temperature from whatever base is assumed, produces an anomaly of, for example, .078 gJ/m^2 in 700m depth of sea water.
.078 gJ = 18642 kcal which, in 700 m^3 of water implies ~.027C.
Thus we are talking about differences on the order of hundredths of a degree C.
Should this be so, how does this difference compare to the expected errors of measurement and averaging, given that the measurements are from a few buoys floating around the ocean?
Would somebody set me straight if I did the conversions wrong?
George E Smith, thanks for the elementary physics lesson, but my question remains unanswered – what is the ratio of the mass of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to the total water in the oceans? The next question would be how much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the deep oceans by 0.1c in 50 years? Then, inquiring minds would want to know, is that amount of energy even remotely available to be transferred from the sum total of all CO2 molecules by any energy transfer mode you can think of. If the deep oceans are warming, then CO2 can not be the primary cause — there’s simply not enough energy available.
How come all past non-satellite data keeps changing in the past? Is there some temporal transmogrification mechanism that I’m unaware of that is peculiar to non-satellite data? Really, does 1950s temperature change in the 2010? And what will it be in 2011?
Bob Tisdale says: October 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm
vukcevic: Some day you’ll link the source of your North Atlantic Precursor and ‘PDO generator’, but based on your linked comment, it doesn’t look like it will be soon.
Bob
There is data available but not available in form to plug in directly. It took some months to assembly whole thing together. I also found that for PDO linear, while for CET square (power of 2) law is best match, which is understandable considering difference in the nature between two, while starting data have identical physical property.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-PDO.htm
The other difference is that CET response is direct (no delay), while for PDO a 10-12 year delay is required. On face of it this would give PDO predictive power.
I have assembled all data and most necessary information for the CET driver, for PDO got most of the data but still need to assemble the background info.
Putting in public domain anything more than graphs (just in case I fall under No.11 bus) , without completed background information, is not something I whish to do at moment; all graphs have normalised arbitrary unit values. One thing I can say is that the initial numbers on which my graphs are based are as good as any, with confidence I would say, by far superior to any in this field of science.
Enneagram says: October 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Remarkable your new graph. Hope you will reveal the driver.
Adolfo I am just getting together what there is available out there already . There is no mystery.
The mass of the “Earth” is about 40 times the mass of the water on it. So how much does this mass affect the oceans?
Stephen Wilde: I asked, “Latitudinal position of the clouds would make no difference if the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface remained constant. Do you have data to support your conjecture either way?”
And you replied but did not provide data, since data will many times contradict your speculations. You discussed the latitudinal variations of the ITCZ and concluded your comment with, “A cloud at the equator will look brighter than the same cloud situated more poleward because it is reflecting more energy. That would make a difference to the Earthshine numbers and it is apparent that from the Earthshine project that the albedo of the Earth did start to increase from the late 90s which is when the jets started moving equatorward again.”
You’re confusing global cloud albedo for ITCZ cloud albedo.
Let’s look at the ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data for the part of the globe where the ITZC is most prevalent. The ISCCP data is only available through the KNMI Climate Explorer from July 1983 to June 2006, but that’s long enough to capture what you’ve said. The ITCZ is not a significant phenomenon over the Indian Ocean due the IOD and it’s not significant over the western Pacific due to the convection over the PWP, so we’ll limit the data to 10S-10N, 180-40E. Based on the logic you expressed in the quote above, the drop in equatorial cloud amount from 1983 to the late 1990s and rise from the late 1990s to the end of the data…
http://i53.tinypic.com/118j6lu.jpg
…would be dependent on the location of the ITCZ.
Let’s further divide that data into its north and south components. First we’ll look at the Total Cloud Amount percentages (not anomalies):
http://i51.tinypic.com/122jb69.jpg
The ITCZ is located north of the equator for the vast majority of the year, so the Northern Cloud Amount is higher than those in the South. But note how the two curves mimic one another. They both dip and rebound, with the trough in the late 1990s. So let’s look at the cloud amount anomalies for those parts of the globe:
http://i54.tinypic.com/dxjq4h.jpg
The two curves are basically the same, Stephen, with some divergences due to ENSO and another factor, possibly Sea Level Pressure. Therefore, most of the variability is independent of your conjecture about ITZC latitude.
Once again, you speculations are not supported by data.
Bob and George,
you can’t know that, but I’m not that stupid 🙂
OHC is a mass integrated measure.
So what does that m**-2 stand for?
The original NODC file is in Joules *10**18.
Where does that denominator come from?
Has Bob (or Climate Explorer) divided for an area of something?
Or is it just a Climate Explorer typo?
Anyway, thanks both for your previous answer and the next one.
The lifetime of the excited state of CO2 caused by the surface (or atmospheric) emitted LWIR photons captured by the CO2, is much longer than the mean time between molecular collisions in the lower atmosphere; so the CO2 molecule almost never gets to re-emit the photon it absorbed. Instead when the CO2 molecule next collides with an N2 or O2 molecule or perhaps even and Ar atom, there will be mechanical energy and momentum exchanged between the two molecules, and some of that captured energy will become increased kinetic e3nergy of the molecule it collides with. So the captured energy is basically thermalized by collisionsso there isn’t the energy left to re-emit the captured photon.; even if such a transition is allowed.
This is absolutely incorrect .
If you measure the downwelling infrared radiation during the night you will measure something like 200 W/m² .
Where do you think it comes from ?
According to what you say this value should be exactly zero because all IR energy got “thermalized” and nothing is left to be emitted by CO2 and H2O .
In reality the CO2 and H2O molecules emit approximately the same energy that they absorb . The reason for that is that the “thermalisation” works both ways – CO2 “thermalizes” O2 and N2 but O2 and N2 also “thermalize” CO2 .
And a “thermalized” CO2 is a CO2 that can and will emit as the night downwelling IR shows .
Bob Tisdale, thanks for the painstaking efforts, clarity of graphs, and generous answers to questions. I, too, am grateful for the brief summary. (I am not happy about the OHC-global linear trend dropping by about 9%.)
pyromancer76 says: “I am not happy about the OHC-global linear trend dropping by about 9%.”
You’ve sparked my interest. Why?
Bob Tisdale said:
“Therefore, most of the variability is independent of your conjecture about ITZC latitude.”
My comments have been about the combined effect of ALL the global cloud systems INCLUDING the ITCZ. I specifically referred to the ITCZ AND the jets more than once.
Please read what I say more carefully. I have found that all your adverse comments are based on subtle and not so subtle misapprehensions about what I say and then you go off at an irrelevant tangent.
I am aware that the movement of the ITCZ is very much less than the apparent shifting of the jets so it is hardly a surprise if the movement of the ITCZ on its own is insufficient to explain observations.
Paolo M. says: “Has Bob (or Climate Explorer) divided for an area of something?”
The NODC OHC data is provided in 1 degree grids. KNMI divides the OHC data by the ocean surface area of the coordinates selected by the user.
vukcevic says:
October 19, 2010 at 1:46 am
Thanks for the reply/explanation.
Why is Heat divided by area? Is their model 2D?
Stephen Wilde replied: “Please read what I say more carefully. I have found that all your adverse comments are based on subtle and not so subtle misapprehensions about what I say and then you go off at an irrelevant tangent.”
I don’t misread or misunderstand what you say. I specifically selected the tropics and ITCZ because you dwelled on the equator in an earlier reply when you wrote (in part), “The sun is highest overhead at the equator and therefore imparting more energy to the surface per unit of area…” and because it was easy to identify the latitudes in which the ITCZ is located. If your logic fails for the ITCZ, is there any reason to expect it to work elsewhere? No.
The curves for the ISCCP total cloud cover amount data are basically the same regardless of whether one looks at the equator (10S-10N), or the tropics (20S-20N), or the globe (90S-90N):
http://i52.tinypic.com/14161×4.jpg
So unless you can document the latitudes in which the jets have migrated and can document the variations in cloud amount at those specific latitudes, you’re simply fooling yourself. The effects you’ve claimed for the ITCZ don’t exist, yet you continue to somehow believe they exist at higher latitudes. You really need to learn to work with the data that’s available to see if your basic speculations have any basis in fact.