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.)
Earthshine changes occurred when the jets shifted. Enough said.
And it is not cloud amounts that are necessarily relevant but the amount of energy reflected by the clouds globally and that is primarily a function of latitudinal position so your cloud amount data is of little relevance. Another example of going off at a tangent.
It simply cannot be the case that shifting all the main cloud bands equatorwards or polewards has a zero effect on albedo.
Pull the other one, as they say in UK.
Hi Bob
Re PDO data: if you get in touch I’ll email the PDO data set.
My email is at the top (far right) of my webpage.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
As an aside, but related point, the influence of human-made aerosols on the ocean heat content changes:
About 90% of all human-made cooling (sulfate) aerosols are emitted in the NH. The ITCZ hinders the exchange with the SH and the low residence time of most of these aerosols (days to weeks) prevents most of them to reach the SH.
Taken that most oceans reach a depth far beyond the 700 m of importance for most of the heat content changes, the difference in solar (and GHG) energy reaching the surface should be less in the NH than in the SH. That is in two steps (according to the IPCC): direct reflection of sunlight by white aerosols and more reflection by clouds, due to more clouds (more condensation nuclei) and denser clouds (more finer drops). The difference should be substantially, as some 1 W/m2 difference in forcing less in the NH (90%) than in the SH (10%), according to the IPCC forcing figure of 1.1 W/m2 for direct and indirect cooling by sulfate aerosols.
The surprise now is that the NH oceans heat content rises faster than the SH oceans, while they should receive less radiation. Imn my opinion, that means that the cooling effect of the human-made aerosols is largely overblown…
Of course, one need to take into account that the surface flow of the oceans in the Atlantic is S to N, but in the Pacific Ocean it is N to S, and the North Pacific Ocean heats faster than the South Pacific Ocean too…
With the Levitus figures, here are the graphs for the combined hemispheric and total oceans:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oceans_heat.html
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:October 19, 2010 at 12:55 pm
……………..
I have looked at number of your web pages, including http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html
For ‘…. graphs and comments, used in discussions’, here is one more for your attention:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
OHC is, of course, a vital variable in the climate system. But even in the Argo bouy era, it is a metric that is very difficult to quantify accurately, as the corrections now issued by NODC show. Prior to Argo, the geographic coverage is very poor, especially in the SH. This makes estimation of the uncertainty bounds even more difficult. While sample variance may provide a useful indication when data plentiful and the geographic field is nearly homogenous, it not a reliable indicator of standard error when those conditions are not met. The earlier stretches of the OHC time series thus need to be taken with bushel of salt.
Stephen Wilde wrote, “Earthshine changes occurred when the jets shifted. Enough said.” But then you continued, because you apparently hadn’t said enough, “And it is not cloud amounts that are necessarily relevant but the amount of energy reflected by the clouds globally and that is primarily a function of latitudinal position so your cloud amount data is of little relevance. Another example of going off at a tangent.”
No tangent. Maybe it’s your failure to accept what’s presented that makes you think I’ve gone off on a tangent. I’ve shown you that there were global changes in cloud amount. I’ve shown you that the equatorial, tropical, and global cloud cover curves are all basically the same. And unless you somehow missed it, the cloud amount data present curves that you’ve described for the earthshine project cloud reflectivity.
You’ve assumed that the variations in the locations of the jets have caused the changes in global albedo (earthshine project), but the fact is the variations in global cloud amount caused the changes in global albedo.
And you wrote, “It simply cannot be the case that shifting all the main cloud bands equatorwards or polewards has a zero effect on albedo.”
That’s the point you need to prove, and so far you have not.
vukcevic says: “Re PDO data: if you get in touch I’ll email the PDO data set.”
I would be happier, as would many, with a detailed description of what the North Atlantic Precursor and PDO Generator datasets are comparised of, and how they are calculated. But that is apparently top secret at the moment.
Regards
“”” TomVonk says:
October 19, 2010 at 5:59 am
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 . “””
Tom, I’m assuming that this is addressed to me, since the early part looks very like a cut and paste of something I recall writing.
So let me re quote what you just said:-
“”””” 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 . “””””
Why would the emission of thermal radiation from the atmosphere go to zero at night ? What has the time of day to do with the emission of thermal radiation from the atmosphere ?
The atmospheric emission doesn’t go to zero either night or day because it’s Temperature never goes to zero (Kelvins) either day or night; and that is the only thing that determines the atmospheric emission.
Presumably at night time; as in the day time, the earth surface is and continues to radiate LWIR thermal emissions upwards; which in the appropriate absorption bands will be still captured (in part) by whatever GHGs are in the atmosphere; including both CO2 and H2O. And presumably the daytime warmed surface will also for a while continue to conduct heat by contact to the atmosphere, which will then rise to higher altitudes; so the radiant heating sources, and the other thermal processes do not shut down just because it is night time.
Tru with the solar spectrum incoming energy being shut down at night that source of atmospehric heating will cease; but just because there is no sunlight does not mean the atmospheric night time temperature will drop to zero K so that atmospheric emissions cease.
If the surface upward LWIR is 390 W/m^2 as claimed by Trenberth; which is an appropriate level for a 288 K black body radiating body; and you say the atmosphere is down radiating 200 W/m^2 at night; to which we should add another 200 W/m^2 which it must be radiating upwards; then that would reasonably correspond to the expected emission from a black body at about the same 288 K Temperature. Not that the atmospheric radiation should be exactly BB like; but that at least puts an upper bound on what it could be if it is at +15 deg C; which it likely is in some locations.
Ultimately, the atmosphere does not care what the source of energy is that establishes its Temperature at any location. Whether by solar radiation capture in O2/O3/H2O and to a weak extent CO2; or by 10.1 micron peak surface emitted LWIR radiation or by direct contact conduction and convection; not to mention the import of Latent heat of evaporation from water surfaces; any of those energy sources will heat the atmosphere; even as it loses energy by its own natural thermal emission.
So the absoluteness of your assertion of incorrectness is rather questionable. I stand by what I wrote. Nothing in my (very rudimentary) explanation suggests that night time atmospheric Temperatures polunge to absolute zero shutting off all thermal emission; and the only atmopsheric heating process that does shut off, is due to the absence of solar spectrum input; which is all that distinguishes night time from daylight hours.
“”” bob says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:52 pm
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? “””
Well Bob, I hope I didn’t go to all that trouble for nothing.
I don’t have any idea what the mass ratio is of atmospheric CO2 molecules to the total ocean mass; or why it is even relevent. I don’t even know why it is relevent what the atmospheric CO2 to total atmosphere mass ratio is.
Tom Vonk attacks my argument and almost suggests that the CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere can radiate 200 W/m^2 downwards at night. I’m sure he doesn’t mean that; the total atmosphere may do that; but only a miniscule amount of that total irradiance can be due to the GHG molecules in the atmosphere; roughly proportional to their abundance. I’m in agreement with Tom that the GHG molecules are also thermalized as a result of their collisions with the main atmospheric gases
and they are all at essentially the same temperature.
But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.
As to the point of your question. I simply suggested that because of the 20:1 wavelength shift from 0.5 micron solar peak to 10 micron earth thermal peak, the downward radiation from the atmosphere part of which is due to GH capture by GHG molecules is strongly absorbed in the very water surface (50 microns) and prompts rapid evaporation , so that much of that energy is quickly returned to the atmosphere as latent heat and not conducted down to the deeper oceans for long term storage.
The energy stored in the deep oceans originated from direct solar spectrum input; and not from downward atmospheric LWIR radiation.
And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.
And no I don’t know what those comparative numbers are which is why I asked Bob if he knew.
George E. Smith wrote:
“But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.”
This is very plausible point and I guess it’s clearly visible in various measurements of back-radiation spectrum (eyeballing the graphs) . I have been arguing about this with two really bright guys (Roy Spencer and Science Of Doom) and both disagree strongly. Do you know why?
CTM: Thanks.
Bob Tisdale said:
“You’ve assumed that the variations in the locations of the jets have caused the changes in global albedo (earthshine project), but the fact is the variations in global cloud amount caused the changes in global albedo.”
Well maybe, but have you shown that that is enough on its own ? In any case the change in cloud amounts could be a result of latitudinal shifting. Simply changing the latitudinal position of the jets would cause changes in cloud cover by stretching the air mass boundaries along a greater circumference around the globe.
So we have several potential causes for the albedo change:
i) a change in the intensity of downward solar radiation that was being blocked by the clouds as they moved latitudinally and/or
ii) a change in the cloud amounts as the cloud bands were stretched out in lower latitudes.
Has anyone quantified the albedo effects of both mechanisms ?
Either way the change in Earthshine coincided with and would have been driven by the latitudinal shifting.
Unless you have other explanations for the change in cloud quantities that is. Svensmark’s proposal would be one such of course.
Bob Tisdale says:
October 19, 2010 at 4:07 am
I notice that all those cloud amount graphs are limited to the regions 10 degrees either side of the equator.
Accordingly the cloud amount changes could be explained by the weather systems either side of the equator shifting more poleward until the late 90s thereby reducing cloud cover because the clouds moved poleward out of the area in question. The change in the late 90s could well be a sign that the clouds are moving back into the area again. It tells us nothing about the actual quantity of clouds globally.
To deal with your cloud amount objection we really need to see data on global cloud quantities and even then the global cloud quantities could themselves be a function of latitudinal positioning of the jets and air mass boundaries.
So could you please prove to me that the changes in albedo are a result of changes in total global cloud amounts and not simply changed reflectance as the clouds moved to areas of more or less intense sunlight.
Ok I’ve found the global link that you provided:
http://i52.tinypic.com/14161×4.jpg
So can you separate cloud amount changes caused by shifts in latitudinal positioning stretching out the air mass boundaries from other possible causes ?
Can you then separate out the albedo effect from the cloud quantity cause and that from the changed reflectance cause ?
Bob. it’s probably unwise to keep banging away at each other in public.
Suffice it to say that in this thread your suggestion that I ought to include cloudiness changes as well as reflectance changes as having an effect on albedo is accepted.
However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets. Adding the cloudiness effect to the reflectance effect simply strengthens my hypothesis by adding to the power of latitudinal shifts to affect global albedo.
“”” Allan Kiik says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
George E. Smith wrote:
“But it is broadband thermal continuum radiation that is emitted from that warm atmosphere including the GHG molecules, and not some narrow spectral line due to a CO2 molecular bending resonance photon emission.”
This is very plausible point and I guess it’s clearly visible in various measurements of back-radiation spectrum (eyeballing the graphs) . I have been arguing about this with two really bright guys (Roy Spencer and Science Of Doom) and both disagree strongly. Do you know why? “””
Allan, it is very difficult to figure out why some scientists say what they say; often it is just miscommunication. I don’t know who or what “Science of Doom” is; but I have a high opinion of Dr Roy Spencer; and Professor John Christy too; but I must admit, that I am perplexed that they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time tying to support the concept of “Climate Sensitivity”, and a logarithmic CO2-Surface Temperature link. I can’t find any empirical or Physics theoretical support for such a simple mathematical relationship. Dr’s Roy and John seem to support much smaller values for cs than the IPCC and Hansen promulgate; but I think we would make much more progress by just abandoning the whole notion. The water cycle is clearly what is regulating the earth’s comfort range; and preventing the Temperature from ever going above +22 deg C no matter how much CO2 there is.
But I read everything that Spencer and Christy put out that I can get my hands on. Now I haven’t read anything from them about the spectrum of atmospheric radiant emissions.
All the text book data that I can find (mostly from the Infra-Red Handbook) which might be a bit dated, shows an external view of the earth that is quite black body spectrum like although distorted since it is of course not isothermal; and those spectra show the dips due to the ozone and CO2 bands; but there is no indication of any bright line emissions such as a decay from an excited resonance state like the CO2 bend mode.
Now Phil, who has been noticeably absent for a while, has pointed out that in the stratosphere; where the densities and Temperatures are much lower, the mean free path or alternatively the mean inter-collision time is long enough compare to the mean lifetime of the ecited CO2 state (the bend mode oscillation) that it can spontaneously decay, and emit a photon with a specific energy; which would have some Doppler broadened line width of course.
But the total atmospehric emission spectrum should range from around 4-5 microns upt to 80-100 microns for most of the energy.
Now Spencer and Christy are using some microwave Oxygen frequency, as a proxy for Temperature in their satellite measurements. I can’t claim to have an intimate understanding of exactly what they are doing or the physical basis; but Roy has explained it a couple of times; and I don’t have one iota of discomfort in accepting that in that work they do know what they are doing.
So it is not that molecular or atomic spectral lines are absent from the atmospehric emission; I’m sure they are there; but the thermal continuum is there also; and it depends only on the atmospheric Temperature.
Tom Vonk’s point about the GHG molecule energies also being thermalized by collisions with N2 or O2 is of course quite true; I’ve never claimed that the CO2 or H2O doesn’t emit some of the downward (and upward) thermal radiation; but it is small potatoes since they are a small fraction of the atmosphere; and it really isn’t disturbing the total spectrum. But because of the very short mean free path in the lower atmosphere; they seldom get a chance to simply re-emit the original exciting photon they captured. Well it is not clear to me that the spontaneous decay is simply a reversal of the excitation transition. I know in atomic spectra, the decay from an excited state often ends up on a different energy level than the original ground state; so the emission photon energy may be different from the original excitation energy if the excited stated was caused by photo absorption. I’m almost totally rusted out on all that Pauli selection stuff; that determines what transitions are allowed; and I’m pretty weak on molecular spectra. I’m not sure if Anna is up on atomic or molecular spectra; or whether she luxuriates only in that inner snctum of the nucleus.
Roy Spencer invests a lot of time in the “Political” front line of this whole climate thing, in his support of the talk radio hosts; who need a credible source boost from time to time; so I can see that he is busy with other issues; and not easy to get into a one on one chat with.
I’m hoping to make one of those annual events that Anthony has attended so I can get some up close with some of those people; and pick their brains; or maybe bend their ears too.
One thing is that places like WUWT are a great resource for opening the windows, and seeing what blows in.
My understanding of the Black Body Radiation theory Alan, is that it mostly follows classical Physics of Electro-magnetic fields; and about all Planck did was to insist that the amount of energy assigned to each degree of freedom of all the “oscillators” must be quantized; rather than any continuous value, which is what led Jeans to an untenable conclusion. But you see, there isn’t any “energy level” quantum stuff that I can see; becuase the theory; doesn’t get into the nature of matter at all; there’s no discussion of atomic properties at all a far as I know. While Temperature needs matter to have any meaning; it apparently doesn’t need to know anything about matter besides mass; and if you introduce electric charge; then you have all that is needed for EM radiation given the motions of particle collisions. I can see that the collisions between molecules which is a Temperature effect, involve changes in momentum, velocity, and energy and this must then involve acceleration of electric charges during the encounter; and that may be the entire source of the Thermal spectrum emission.
I work with a whole basket full of PhD Physicists; but to a man they seem to know more and more about less and less; and unfortunately none of their specialties (which they are damn good at) seems to lie in the field of thermal radiation Physics; so I pretty much have to wallow around in the mud by myself. I have a couple of knowledgeable contacts; but I hate to bother them with stuff that must seem rather trivial to them; and so far I haven’t found any Rosetta Stone text books.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:05 am
“”Bob. it’s probably unwise to keep banging away at each other in public.””
__________Reply;
Quite the contrary, I find that a lot of the time when these threads go cold enough for the trolls to be disinterested, as they follow the hot new topics, in search of their much needed attention.
Allows those with a real interest in the base subject matter to discuss rather than debate points of interest, to where real peer review happens real time to the benefit of total understanding of the process.
I would like to inject my viewpoints for you to consider as well, because you are both looking at the same problem with out having a real handle on the modulation of the solar drivers, by the actions of the long term periodic forcing of the global circulation patterns, by the multiple lunar tidal forcings and periods of actions.
The shifts from mostly zonal flow to very loopy jet stream patterns, is a direct result of the effects of the 18.6 year periods of the lunar declinational movement, compounded by the shorter term 27.32 day basic period cycles, inter acting with the gradual shifting of the modulation of the 28 day phase effects with the 27.32 day declinational effects, Better defined by the length of the QBO cycle = 28X27.32 =~765 days. Being further modulated by the synod conjunctions of the outer planets driving the separation between jets, by the more pole ward movement during approach, and the convergence of the resultant fronts post conjunctions.
Further complicated by the pole shift of the polar vortex’s from South to North and resultant shift in balance in the Sea ice concentration and severity of winter weather, being traceable to the net effects of the outer planets being by heliocentric declination above or below the ecliptic plane, on a longer time cycle, and also being modulated by synod conjunctions of individual planets.
The ENSO patterns both types of El nino patterns and la nina patterns and arrival timing, are the secondary result of these interactive relationships, and will not be forecast able until the solar system wide driving mechanisms are fully understood.
Per example once you realize you live two blocks from a large high school, it is easy to under stand why the traffic around 3 pm is just crazy, and every time they have a sports event it extends clear until it is over.
One of the mechanisms neither of you are considering is the effects on reflectivity and position of the cloud cover, during the charge and discharge cycles of ion pumping into and out of the atmosphere at every synod conjunction, as well as the pass of the Earth between the center of the galaxy and the sun every Northern summer. That affects the amount of atmospheric moisture vapor that is inhibited from condensing into clouds by ionization (effectively static charges) that are mutually repulsive and set the size and density of the cloud droplets.
None of these effects are modeled well in either weather or climate models, but algorithms can be derived from observations with respect to, the above planetary and lunar effects, that can then be incorporated into the models, coupled with the cyclic patterns of the lunar declinational tidal effects in the production and modulation of the jet streams and their resultant positions, to get some thing that works for as long a term as the length of the longest cyclic patterns considered.
I read every thing posted to this and several other blogs regarding weather, and it would be a shame that any good ideas I can surmise, from the composite knowledge that can be gleaned should go to waste, by your/their dismissing the composite understanding because it is
notall of your/their own making.Stephen Wilde: With respect to your October 20, 2010 at 4:58 am, your October 20, 2010 at 5:44 am, October 20, 2010 at 5:55 am, and your October 20, 2010 at 9:05 am replies, I’ll respond to one of your requests. It seems to be the all-encompassing one in my view. You wrote, “So could you please prove to me that the changes in albedo are a result of changes in total global cloud amounts and not simply changed reflectance as the clouds moved to areas of more or less intense sunlight.”
In a number of papers, Project Earthshine members have compared their data to ISCCP Cloud Amount data, and as you know, I’ve used one of the ISCCP Cloud Amount products for the graphs on this thread. Here’s a link to the Project Earthshine Bibliography webpage:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/bibliography.htm
You’ll likely find some of the reasons for the similarities and differences between the Project Earthshine and ISCCP Cloud Amount based reflectance data in Pelle et al (2008). They have a link to the in-press version at the top of their bibliography.
I know I didn’t answer your question, but the links in the bibliography will allow you to research their papers to see if they found whether any latitudinal changes in clouds were the cause for the changes in albedo. I’ve done a few spot checks and couldn’t find anything.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets.”
But your view is not based on data and until you can substantiate your views with data, it is only conjecture.
George E. Smith says: “And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.”
George, I was not a participant in your conversations about LWIR on this thread. You’re referring to the other Bob, I assume. Please correct me if I somehow missed a question.
Regards
I think technically the “Jets” form at the boundary between warm and cooler air masses.
So the Jets do not “move”, the warm and cold air masses either expand or shrink. This is a different view of the issue which should change one’s perspective.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Jetcrosssection.jpg
Bill Illis:
Agreed, thank you. One of my past comments in other threads refers to the expansion and contraction of the polar air masses due to top down solar effects, then the expansion and contraction of the equatorial air masses due to bottom up oceanic effects, with the jets being pushed and pulled to and fro between those two interacting forces.
Richard Holle:
Yes, I’ve noted your views on how those other factors might be involved in affecting the overall scanario but as yet I haven’t formed a view because it doesn’t really matter to my hypothesis as to exactly how the top down and bottom up forcings might be modulated thereby. I might need to address that at a later date but at the moment I have to concentrate on and hopefully deal with the top down objections from Dr.Svalgaard and the bottom up objections from Bob Tisdale.
If the Haigh findings are verified that deals with Dr. Svalgaards objections so I am just waiting on that.
With regard to Bob’s objections I think they would be partially disposed of if indeed the latitudinal shifting of the jets is the primary cause of observed albedo changes either by changing overall reflectance or changing total cloud quantities or more likely both. Changing albedo alters energy input to the oceans and thus directly impacts ENSO and so if caused by latitudinal jet shifting that could partly deal with Bob’s assertion that ENSO is essentially an internal system phenomenon of a free standing nature.
I can’t find much data on that and so will have to await developments.
Ascertaining whether there are any significant temperature discontinuities along the track of the thermohaline circulation would also impact on the supposed free standing nature of ENSO.
I’m happy that Bob is right as regards ENSO on an interannual basis or up to 30 years. From 30 to 60 years the ENSO variations could be either free standing or externally forced. Over more than 60 years I don’t see that Bob can account for those longer tterm changes from MWP to LIA to date without invoking external forcings and I accept his reasons for not wishing to try.
Bob Tisdale:
I couldn’t find anything either but thank you for trying. In the absence of data, conjecture based on observation is valuable because it narrows down the data that should be sought.
“Bob Tisdale says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “However in my view both follow the shifting of the jets.”
But your view is not based on data and until you can substantiate your views with data, it is only conjecture.”
Actually there is data, namely the observation that the change in Earthshine trend and the change in cloudiness trend were both contemporaneous with the start of the equatorward shift in the jets which I first noted in 2000.
Furthermore all three changes were contemporaneous with the decline in solar activity, the tendency of the Polar Oscillations to become more negative, the cessation of warming in the troposphere, the shifting of the PDO to a negative phase and cessation of cooling in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Then the Haigh paper also found that ozone is apparently increasing in the mososphere and top few Km of the stratosphere just as the solar wind falls away (and I noted that the number of solar protons destroying ozone in the mesosphere is falling thereby potentially reversing the anticipated cooling effect of a quiet sun on the mesosphere and topmost portion of the stratosphere).
So, any viable climate description has to accommodate every one of those bits of data plus the climate cycling from MWP to LIA to date and ideally also the change in the degree of climate variability observed between glacial epochs and interglacials.
Mine does. Is there another ?
“”” Bob Tisdale says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
George E. Smith says: “And the gist of my question for Bob Tisdale was did he have some comparative numbers for the contribution of LWIR down radiated energy versus solar; since I am not saying the former is zero.”
George, I was not a participant in your conversations about LWIR on this thread. You’re referring to the other Bob, I assume. Please correct me if I somehow missed a question.
Regards “”””
Bob, it looks like I got a couple of threads crossed. You had described the ocean heat content as consisting of stored solar plus downwelling LWIR sourced; and that tweaked me to ask if you had numbers for each (solar and down LWIR) in J/m^2 or whatever you use. I understand the solar part somewhat; but have always thought that the LWIR results mostly in evaporation rather than ocean storage; so I was curious if you had separate contribution nmubers. If not it doesn’t matter; don’t do any research to find it.
As to Stephen Wilde’s theory of latitudinal cloud shifts; I have no opinion on that other than I’m not aware of any observational data that supports or otherwise such a theory.
I have offered that Wentz et al’s report of the 7% increase in Evap/Atmospheric H2O/Precip for a one deg C Surface Temperature increase; implies a similar % increase in (precipitable) cloud cover, since such clouds must go hand in hand with precipitation.
And I elaborated that the (7%) increase could be comprised of any combination of cloud area, cloud optical (and water) density, and cloud persistence time; to which could be added that if existing levels of cloud coverage, did shift to more moisture rich environments such as over warm oceans, that the “cloud cover” as I describe it would of course increase.
But what Wilde describes is adequately covered by my combination of area/water density/lifetime. His shift to warmer climes would likely result in higher water content, but also with area and time components.
So like I said, I have no opinion on his theory; except that it doesn’t conflict with what I conjectured; or add to it either unless Stephen actually has observational data to support the occurrence of his latitude shift effect; and I gather you feel there isn’t supporting data.
Stephen disagrees with my conjecture in favor of his thesis, and his “New Climate Theory”, while others have simply asked whether I can say which changes, the area, or the water content, or the persistence time; which suggests to me that they just don’t understand the concept. I don’t know; and I don’t care which it is; but some climate researcher might want to know or find out. I’m only interested in the net combined effect; which I believe is the major climate (Temperature) regulating mechanism on earth.
How the heat moves around in all these cycles, and where it hides out (in the oceans) is certainly of importance for local climates; but doesn’t really come into play much in the overalll energy balance of the planet; which is about the limit of my real interest (and knowledge).
Regards
George
I am pleased to note that the big jump in 2003 at the point when Argo data entered the database is now gone–a jump that I pointed out last year here and a Pielke Sr. blogs with a suspicion that it was artificial.