Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate in other than a general way. Let me talk a bit about what the PDO is, what it does, and how we measure it.
First, what is the PDO when it’s at home? It is a phenomenon which manifests itself as a swing between a “cold phase” and a “warm phase”. This swing seems to occur about every thirty or forty years. The changeover from one phase to the other was first noticed in 1976, when it was called the “Great Pacific Climate Shift”. The existence of the PDO itself, curiously, was first noticed in its effects on the salmon catches of the Pacific Northwest.
Figure 1. The phases of the PDO, showing the typical winds and temperatures associated with its two phases. The color scale shows the temperature anomalies in degrees C.
Figure 1 is a clear physical depiction of the two opposite ends of the PDO swing, based on how it manifests itself in terms of surface temperatures and winds. But to me that’s not the valuable definition. The valuable definition is a functional definition, based on what the PDO does rather than on how it manifests itself. In other words, a definition based on the effect that the PDO has on the functioning of the climate as a whole.
A Functional Definition of the PDO
To understand what the PDO is doing, you first need to understand how the planet keeps from overheating. The tropics doesn’t radiate all the heat it receives. If it did the tropics would be much, much hotter than it is. Instead, the planet keeps cool by constantly moving huge, almost unimaginably large amounts of heat from the tropics to the poles. At the poles, that heat is radiated back to space.
The transportation of the heat from the equator to the poles is done by both the atmosphere and the ocean. The atmosphere can move and respond quickly, so it controls the shorter-term variations in the poleward transport. However, the ocean can carry much more heat than the atmosphere, so it is doing the slower heavy lifting.
The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.
The major movement of heat by the ocean, however, is not gravitationally driven. It is the millions of tonnes of warm tropical Pacific water pumped to the poles by the alternation of the El Nino and La Nina conditions. I described in “The Tao of El Nino” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/ how this pump works. Briefly, the Nino/Nina alteration periodically pushes a huge mass of warm water westwards. At the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, the warm water splits, and moves polewards along the Asian and Australian coasts. Finally, at the poles it radiates its heat to space. Figure 1a from my previous post shows the action of the pump.
Figure 1a. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward alone the equator. Each 3D section covers the area eight degrees north and south of the equator, from 137° East (far end) to 95° West (near end), and down to 500 metres depth. Click on image for larger size.
Figure 1a shows a stretch of the top layer of the Pacific Ocean. It runs along the Equator all the way across the Pacific, from South America (near end of illustration) to Asia (far end of illustration). During the El Nino half of the pumping cycle, which corresponds to the input stroke of a pump, warm water builds up along the Equator as shown in the left 3D section. Then in the La Nina part of the cycle, the pressure stroke, that water is physically moved by the wind across the entire Pacific, where it splits and moves toward both poles.
Now, this El Nino/La Nina pumping action is not a simple feedback in any sense. It is a complex governing mechanism which kicks in periodically to remove excess heat from the tropical Pacific to the poles. As such it exerts control over the long-term energy content of the planet.
So here’s the first oddity about the PDO. The two alternate states of the PDO look very much like the two alternate states of El Nino/La Nina. In both, heat builds up in the eastern tropical Pacific, while the poles are cool. And in both, the alternate situation is where the heat is moved to the poles, residual warmth remains along the coasts of Asia and Australia, and the eastern tropical Pacific is cool.
This is an important observation because in addition to regulating the amount of incoming energy through the timing of the onset of the clouds and thunderstorms, the planet regulates its heat content by varying the rate of “throughput”. I am using “throughput” to mean the rate at which heat is moved from the equator to the poles. When the movement of heat to the poles slows, heat builds up. And when that pole-bound movement speeds up, the heat content of the planet is reduced through increased heat loss at the poles.
The rate of throughput of heat from the tropics to the poles is controlled at different time scales by different phenomena.
On an hourly/daily scale, the variations in the amount of heat moved are all in the atmospheric part of the system. The timing and amount of thunderstorms directly regulate the amount of heat leaving the surface to join the Hadley circulation to the poles.
On an inter annual basis, the throughput is regulated by the El Nino/La Nina pump.
And finally, on a decadal basis, the throughput is regulated by the PDO.
So as a functional definition, I would say that the PDO is a another part of the complex system which controls the planetary heat content. It is a rhythmic shift in the strength and location of the Pacific currents which alternately impedes or aids the flow of heat to the poles.
The Climate Effects of the PDO
As you might imagine, the state of the PDO has a huge effect on the climate, particularly in the nearby regions. The climate of Alaska, for example, is hugely influenced by the state of the PDO.
Nor is this the only effect. The PDO seems to move in some sense in phase with global temperatures. Since the Pacific covers about half the planet, this should come as no surprise.
How We Measure the PDO
The PDO was first measured in salmon catches. Historical records in British Columbia up in Canada showed a clear cyclical pattern … and since then, a number of other ways to measure the PDO have been created. Current usage seems to favor either the detrended North Pacific temperature, or alternately using the first “principle component” (PC) of that temperature. Since the first PC of a slowly trending time series is approximately the detrended series itself, these are quite similar.
To measure the PDO or the El Nino, I don’t like these types of temperature-based indices. For both theoretical and practical reasons, I prefer pressure-based indices.
The practical reason is that we don’t have much information about the North Pacific historical water temperatures. Sure, we have the output of the computer reanalysis models, but that’s computer model output based on very fragmentary input, and not data. As a result it’s hard to take a long-term look at the PDO using temperatures, which is important when a full cycle lasts sixty years or so.
The same issue doesn’t apply as much to pressure-based indices. The big difference is that the pressure field changes much more gradually than the temperature field at all spatial scales. If you move a thermometer a hundred metres you can get a very different temperature. That is not true about a barometer, you get the same pressure anywhere in town. Indeed, they don’t suffer from many of the problems in temperature based indices, in part because the instruments used to measure pressure are not subject to the micro-climate issues that bedevil temperature records. This means that you can directly compare say the pressure in Darwin and the pressure in Tahiti. So those two datasets are used to construct the pressure-based Southern Ocean Index.
As a result, it is much easier to construct an accurate estimate of the entire pressure field from say a few hundred stations than it is to estimate the temperature field. Indeed, this kind of estimation has been used for many decades before computers to construct the weather maps showing the high and low-pressure areas. This is because the surface pressure field, unlike the surface temperature field, is smooth and relatively computable from scattered ground stations.
The theoretical reason I don’t like temperature based indices is that people always want to subtract them from the global temperature for various reasons. I see this done all the time with temperature-based El Nino indices. It all seems too incestuous to me, removing temperature of the part from temperature of the whole.
The final theoretical reason I prefer pressure-based indices is that they integrate the data from a large area. For example, the Southern Ocean Index (which measures pressures in the Southern Hemisphere) reflects conditions all the way from Australia to Tahiti.
In any case, Figure 2 shows a typical PDO index. This is the one maintained by the Japanese at JISAO. It is temperature based.
Figure 2. The temperature-based JISAO Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index. It is calculated as the leading principal component of the North Pacific sea surface temperature.
As I mentioned, for the PDO, I much prefer pressure based indices. Here is the record of one of the pressure-based indices, the “North Pacific Index”. The information page says:
The North Pacific (NP) Index is the area-weighted sea level pressure over the region 30°N-65°N, 160°E-140°W.
Figure 3. The pressure-based North Pacific Index, calculated as detailed above.
As you can see, the sense of the NP Index is opposite to the sense of the JISAO PDO Index. They’ve indicated this in Figure 3 by putting the red (for warm) below the line and the blue (for cool) above the line, but this doesn’t matter, it’s just how the index is constructed. It moves roughly in parallel (after inversion) with the JISAO PDO Index shown in Figure 2.
Now, for me, both of those charts are totally uninteresting. Why? Because they don’t tell me when the regime changes. I mean, in Figure 3, was there some kind of reversal around 1990? 1950? It’s all a jumble, with no clear switch from one regime to the other.
To answer these types of questions, I’ve become accustomed to using a procedure that other folks don’t seem to utilize much. I’ve taken some grief for using it here on WUWT, but to me it is an invaluable procedure.
This is to look at the cumulative total of the index in question. A “cumulative total” is what we get when we start with the first value, and then add each succeeding value to the previous total. Why use the cumulative total of an index? Figure 4 shows why:
Figure 4. Cumulative North Pacific Index (inverted). The data have been normalized, so the units are standard deviations. The cumulative index is detrended, see Appendix for details.
I’ve inverted the cumulative NPI to make it run the same direction as the temperature. You can see the advantage of using the cumulative total of the index—it lays bare the timing of the fundamental shifts in the system.
Now, looking at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in this way makes it a few things clear.
First, it establishes that there are two distinct states of the PDO. It’s either going up or going down.
In addition, it shows that the shift from one to the other is clearly threshold-based. Until a certain (unknown) threshold condition is reached, there is no sign of any change in the regime, and the motion up or down continues unabated.
But once that (unknown) threshold is passed, the entire direction of motion changes. Not only that, but the turnaround time is remarkably short. After only a few months in each case the other direction is established.
Finally, to me this shows the clear fingerprint of a governing mechanism. You can see the effects of the unknown “thermostat” switching the system from one state to the other.
RECAP
I’ve hypothesized that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is another one of the complex interlocking emergent mechanisms which regulate the temperature and the heat content of the climate system. They do this in part by regulating the “throughput”, the speed and volume of the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles via the atmosphere and the oceans.
These emergent mechanisms operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. At the small end, the scales are on the order of minutes and hundreds of metres for something like a dust devil (cooling the surface by moving heat skywards and eventually polewards).
On a daily scale, the tropical thunderstorms form the main driving force for the Hadley atmospheric circulation that moves heat polewards. Of course, the hotter the tropics get, the more thunderstorms form, and the more heat is moved polewards, keeping the tropical temperature relatively constant … quite convenient, no?
On an inter-annual scale, when heat builds up in the tropical Pacific, once it reaches a certain threshold the El Nino/La Nina alteration pumps a huge amount of warm water rapidly (months) to the poles.
Finally, on a decadal scale, the entire North Pacific Ocean reorganizes itself in some as-yet unknown fashion to either aid or impede the flow of heat from the tropics to the poles.
CONCLUSION
So … can the PDO help us to forecast the temperature? Hard to tell. It is sooo tempting to say yes … but the problem is, we simply don’t know. We don’t know what the threshold is which is passed at the warm end of the scale in Figure 4 to turn the PDO back downwards. We also don’t know what the other threshold is at the cool end that re-establishes the previous regime anew. Not only do we not know the threshold, we don’t know the domain of the threshold, although obviously it involves temperatures … but which temperatures where, and what else is involved?
And most importantly, we don’t know what the physical mechanisms involved in the shift might be. My speculation, and it is only that, is that there is some rapid and fundamental shift in the pattern of the currents carrying the heat polewards. The climate system is constantly evolving and reorganizing in response to changing conditions.
As a result, it makes perfect sense and is in accordance with the Constructal Law that when the sea temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles gets steep enough, the ocean currents will re-organize in a manner that increases the polewards heat flow. Conversely, when enough heat is moved polewards and the tropics-to-poles heat gradient decreases, the currents will return to their previous configuration.
But exactly what those reversal thresholds might be, and when we will strike the next one, remains unknown.
HOWEVER … all is not lost. The reversals in the state of the PDO can be definitively established in Figure 4. They occurred in 1923, 1945, 1976, and 2005. One thing that we do NOT see in the record is any reversal shorter than 22 years (except a two-year reversal 1988-1990) … and we’re about eight years into this one. So acting on way scanty information (only three intervals, with time between reversals of 22, 31, and 29 years), my educated guess would be that we will have this state of the PDO for another decade or two. I’ve sailed across the Pacific, it’s a huge place, things don’t change fast. So I find it hard to believe that the Pacific could gain or lose heat fast enough to turn the state of the PDO around in five or ten years, when we don’t see that kind of occurrence in a century of records.
Of course, nature is rarely that regular, so we may see a PDO reversal next month … which is why I say that tempting as it might be, I wouldn’t lay any big bets on the duration of the current phase of the PDO. History says it will continue for a decade or two … but in chaotic systems, history is notoriously unreliable.
w.
PS—This discussion of pressure-based indices makes me think that there should be some way to use pressure as a proxy for the temperature. This might aid in such quests as identifying jumps in the temperature record, or UHI in the cities, or the like. So many drummers … so little time.
MATH NOTE: The shape of the cumulative total is strongly dependent on the zero value used for the total. If all of the results are positive, for example, the cumulative total will look much like a straight line heading upwards to the right, and it will go downwards to the right if the values are all negative. As a result, it cannot be used to determine an underlying trend. The key to the puzzle is to detrend the cumulative total, because strangely, the detrended cumulative total is the same no matter what number is chosen for the zero value. Go figure.
So I just calculate the trend starting with the first point in whatever units I’m using, and then detrend the result.



Paul Vaughan says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Paul, once again you are just throwing mud at the wall and hoping it will stick. An honest man would link to the the comments he objects to. You, on the contrary, just wave your hands and make unsupported allegations against unknown comments by … who?
If you have an objection to a comment, at least have the courtesy to quote the comment in question, so we can tell who you are trying to denigrate today (and likely why you are wrong in doing so).
Otherwise, you’re just retailing baseless gossip. I know you’re damn good at doing that and you obviously love to do it … but this ain’t the place.
w.
PS—My breakthrough is not in plotting the integral, nor did I say it was. Plenty of folks have done that, including yourself. But as you point out, the plotting of it is “trivial”, in your words, including when you plotted it.
My breakthrough was understanding what that integral meant and placing it in a coherent contextual and theoretical framework with the other emergent climate governing phenomena … something which you didn’t do.
Kristian
Your answer first, then mine.
lgl,
thanks for the answer. And I appreciate your comments. But I find it difficult to agree with you in this matter. If a warm evening is a result of a hot sun on a clear summers day, a cloud cover from the evening and during the night will keep the surface temperature higher than a clear sky would. The heat at the surface will radiate and reradiate between the ground and the clouds. But, the real income of energy, the warming, has taken place at daytime from the sun in a clear sky. This seems to me as a parallel to the energy from the sun radiatied into the ocean mostly in the western pacific and then transported eastwards as warmer surface water at the same time as it is producing clouds and rain that for a certain time will retain the energy, the surface temperature, because of radiation/reradiation between sea surface and cloud cover. This seems to me as a reasonable mechanism. But I don’t mind taking a closer look at cloud cover during the different periods. So until then..
lgl says, June 11, 2013 at 11:37 am:
“Your answer first, then mine.”
OK.
“The LW is measured every day around the world.”
No. It is calculated, derived, deduced, inferred, assumed, every day around the world.
“You can’t explain the high temps of the surface without it, for instance 300 K in tropical Pacific and only 200 W/m2 solar input.”
Of course you can. The atmosphere weighs down upon the ocean surface with a certain atmospheric pressure, forcing it to warm to a temperature level where the vapour pressure is high enough to facilitate adequate heat loss through evaporation (by raising the saturation/dew point) to balance the incoming from the Sun. Somewhat similar with convective heat loss, only through atmospheric supression of buoyant acceleration of conductively heated surface air.
“What’s the temperature of a black-body emitting 200 W/m2?”
~244K. That is, this would be the emission temperature of such an ideal emitter in a vacuum, losing all its heat by radiation only, to surroundings at 0 K. In other words, a situation not even remotely similar to that of the surface of the Earth which lies at the bottom of a massive sea of air in a gravity field.
Kristian
This is still mostly skydragon nonsense. LW is being measured, pressure is not a heat source and the radiation from a BB does not depend on the temp of the surroundings.
And I do not agree with your “facts”
Maybe more tomorrow.
“Despite that, it’s good enough to keep us on course within fairly narrow bounds. Half a degree in a century is not an exceptional change. It is exceptional stability.”
You’ve identified two of these climate temperature governors and I’m betting you will find more. But what happens if there are several governors? Do you suppose there is a regime of conditions where a governor works for awhile but then switches off when outside of the boundaries, maybe allowing another to take over? Years ago I read about a mathematical technique for determining whether a system is being controlled. It simply looked for low correlation between the effects. If there are multiple governors controlling temperature that might be a way to identify which ones are active.
Willis Eschenbach (June 11, 2013 at 11:34 am) wrote:
“My breakthrough was understanding what that integral meant and placing it in a coherent contextual and theoretical framework with the other emergent climate governing phenomena”
It appears you’re starting to appreciate and understand what Jean Dickey (NASA JPL) has been writing about for decades.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm
And since once again you don’t care enough about it to provide a link … well, I don’t care about it enough to hunt for it. If you want traction, provide links.
Sorry to spoil your plan, Paul but I’m not stupid enough to go haring around looking for something you think is important. When I’ve done that with folks like you in the past, they usually end up by saying something like “Oh, I didn’t mean that study by Jean Dickey, I meant another one” …
Nice try, though, I’m sure some folks would be dumb enough to fall for it.
w.
Paul Vaughan, just for a laugh I thought “Who is Jean Dickey when she’s at home?” First thing I find is this:
Gosh … she’s done research “implying” that human-caused global warming has affected the movements of the earth’s core. I am so impressed, Paul. That’s really something.
Is that the Jean Dickey research you referred to, Paul, when you said I was just “starting to appreciate and understand what Jean Dickey has been saying for decades”?
She says the research implies that humans are to blame … but then she also implicates cosmic rays. And of course the “possibility” that some unknown core process is affecting the climate. Plus she says it might be some external solar process … is that what she’s been “saying for years?”
That’s the crappiest attempt to pin global warming on humans I’ve seen in a while, Paul. I don’t know about her other fantasies, but those particular fantasies of Jean’s about humans moving the earth’s core are simultaneously insanely hubristic (humans are soooo powerful that we can shift the core of the earth using just the flatulence of our domestic animals, all we do is break wind in the general direction of the Earth’s core, add a bit of CO2, and the core moves), and childishly bathetic.
So I gotta assume you’re talking about something else she’s been “saying for years”, but who knows what and where?
… you see why I don’t play your nasty game, Paul, other than for the lulz?
w.
HenryP says:
June 11, 2013 at 9:28 am
now,
as I was saying,
\not “some” (which is what you suggested) but most, if not all, of the E-UV is used to convert oxygen into ozone and HO into HxOx and NO into NxOx at the TOA.
No, a significant portion of E-UV is used to heat the thermosphere and create the ionosphere
The atmosphere protects us from the E-UV. When the sun is quiet, (less SSN) you get more E-UV. More ozone and others TOA means more UV (all types) being back radiated, and less UV coming through the atmosphere. . It is the UV, mostly, that fires up the oceans. If you do not get that bit right, you miss all the fun.
There is no back radiation of the UV since the absorbing O2 and O3 photo-dissociate and result in heating of surrounding gases and emission of IR. O2 and O3 block UV below 310nm high in the atmosphere so none makes it through to be absorbed by the ocean. You originally said “Remember that what heats the oceans is mostly the F-UV “, this is not true as I pointed out before, the F-UV is absorbed by O2 high in the atmosphere and doesn’t make it to the surface, thank goodness!
FWIW, Mr. Eschenbach, it is obvious to your reading audience that the above accusations and insinuations of plagiarism are baseless, bald, assumptions, unsupported by any evidence. That is, your accusers make a serious, damning, charge based, so far, on mere post hoc ergo propter hoc type conjecture.
In a court of law, you would win. All you need cite is “independent genius.” That you did the work yourself is enough. It is their burden to prove you stole the work of others.
Such attacks on your honor could hardly go unmentioned by you, but, from now on, I would strongly advise you to simply ignore them. No one here whose opinion matters (and I’m not saying that mine does) could possibly believe them. And, since the ONLY evidence they have presented is their own unsupported testimony, they have not proven to your audience in the SLIGHTEST that you did not independently (given that anyone actually did come up with such calculations before — not saying I know that anyone has) generate your results (and yes, I realize that your conclusion is, calculations aside, unique and unprecedented — I’m only addressing their accusations which are v. a v. the underlying calculations).
That the trolls will not apologize is expected, but that even your (apparently, anyway) stalwart and usually honorable colleague(s?) above refuse to take back such a serious accusation is disappointing to say the least.
Well, my opinion is of very little weight here, I know, but, I hope that you realize from my comment that no one but your above accusers sees ANY evidence for your stealing the ideas of others.
Maybe they are envious.
Who knows? So far, given the absence of any evidence for their accusations, they certainly appear to be eaten up by envy. Sad.
Analysing the PDO spectrum, it shows one frequency power peak, which is also part of the MEI/ONI/ENSO spectra. It is the frequency of twice the average Sun Spot Number frequency (SSN) of 1/5.598 y-1, while the SSN frequency is 1/11.196 y-1.
s. http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_mei.gif
There is also a frequency in the PDO of half the SSN frequency of 1/22.392 y-1, and a frequency MODE of 5 times the SSN frequency of 1 / 2.239 y-1 besides from some Jupiter tide couples of ~ 1/3.3 y-1.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/pdo_fft_ssn.gif
This means that the nature of the PDO corresponds to the solar spot rhythm, in contrast to the MEI/ONI/ENSO, which corresponds to the Earth axis wobble< sound of 433 days and sub harmonics.
s. http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_mei.gif
Background:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/pdo_paper.html
V.
Phil. says
No, a significant portion of E-UV is used to heat the thermosphere and create the ionosphere
Henry says
the E-UV is what is forming the ozone and others that forms the ionosphere…..
Phil. says
F-UV is absorbed by O2 high in the atmosphere and doesn’t make it to the surface, thank goodness!
Henry says
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
the above graph clearly indicates that radiation > 100 nm is coming through to sea level (red!)
now you said: Far Ultraviolet= FUV 200 – 122 nm 6.20 – 10.16 eV
so I was right and you were wrong.
Phil. says
the absorbing O2 and O3 photo-dissociate and result in heating of surrounding gases and emission of IR. O2 and O3 block UV below 310nm high in the atmosphere so none makes it through to be absorbed by the ocean.
Henry says
Please Phil: not that nonsense again. A gas has little mass so it cannot possibly absorb all the heat coming in from the sun. If earth warmth depended on coming from the atmosphere, it would be very, very cold because there is no mass.
You have to try and understand the principle of re-radiation
(And I am not going to explain it to you again)
As shown to you, the UV >100 nm is coming through and we know that water has big absorption in the UV region. So there is mass!!! Therefore, all the incoming UV is directly converted to heat. This is what warms the oceans, especially SH. If you donot get that bit you will never understand the various processes that govern the climate.
Henry@Phil.
sorry.
you were right.
I see now that the scale on the bottoms starts at 200.
I thought it started at zero.
I was confused by the term Far-UV which I thought was the end of the UV that is in fact coming through, which is in fact ca. 300-400 nm, apparently.
Thanks for setting me straight there.
Nevertheless, the rest of my argument stands. It is that 300-400 part coming through that has the highest energy and where water has the highest absorption. Any variation in that is what is causing the change as observed in the PDO, etc..
The fish do it. When too many swim ashore (upriver) they upset the heat balance and it starts running the other way.
Willis Eschenbach (June 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm) wrote of Jean Dickey (NASA JPL):
“So I gotta assume you’re talking about something else she’s been “saying for years”, but who knows what and where?”
Here at WUWT I’ve harshly criticized the stuff you’ve just highlighted — e.g.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/hump-day-hilarity-astronauts-rule/#comment-954143
Above I linked to 3 of Jean Dickey’s superior works — included here:
http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130224%20-%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Volatility%20Waves.pdf
Your current article seems designed to be an introduction to &/or summary of Jean Dickey’s best work for a general audience. This marks the third recent instance of what I’ve viewed as positive shifts in your narrative, but I’m not supporting attempts to frame 70 year old knowledge as something you’ve newly pioneered.
Willis said:
“My breakthrough was understanding what that integral meant and placing it in a coherent contextual and theoretical framework with the other emergent climate governing phenomena “.
I would not go so far as alleging plagiarism because it is common for different researchers to come to similar conclusions at around the same time.
All I would respectfully mention is that Willis’s extensions of his Thermostat Hypothesis to the oceans does appear to overlap work already done by me in slotting as many emergent climate governing phenomena as possible into a coherent climate overview.
I think I am currently somewhat ahead on the fuller picture.
Indeed, there might be others who could say something similar about my work overlapping with theirs so all any of us can do is await the eventual outcome and then sort out from the records who said what about the relevant science and when.
It is useful to have so much dated and stored on the internet.
Brian H says
The fish do it. When too many swim ashore (upriver) they upset the heat balance and it starts running the other way.
Henry says
Yes, but I think it is the methane from the extra fish. That is also what caused the Medeviel Warm Period, don’t you think?
HenryP says:
June 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Henry@Phil.
sorry.
you were right.
I see now that the scale on the bottoms starts at 200.
I thought it started at zero.
I was confused by the term Far-UV which I thought was the end of the UV that is in fact coming through, which is in fact ca. 300-400 nm, apparently.
Thanks for setting me straight there.
You’re welcome.
Nevertheless, the rest of my argument stands. It is that 300-400 part coming through that has the highest energy and where water has the highest absorption.
I’m afraid that’s not the case, if you look at the graph below (which you posted earlier), you’ll see that 300-400nm has the lowest absorption coefficient of the wavelengths transmitted by the atmosphere.
300-400 averages about 10^-4/cm, visible about 10^-3/cm and near IR about 10^-1/cm.
Each UV photon is more energetic however.
http://www.google.co.za/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html&h=452&w=640&sz=50&tbnid=mqV1VTNQej6nnM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__pmn_KwwocXoudfNjZhvzt-r8oOs=&docid=NrHvwXf4L6-AJM&sa=X&ei=FrC0UemUGoaN7AaJ-oGoDQ&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA
lgl says: “Again, the rule is, the total radiation to the surface, the energy input, is above average when ENSO is above average.”
Why would you combine DSR and DLR when looking at the ocean? Due their abilities to penetrate the surface, they have significantly different abilities to warm the ocean. It’s been known for decades that sunlight, not infrared radiation, replenishes ocean heat during a La Nina. I’m not sure why it’s so hard to grasp.
Phil. says
if you look at the graph below (which you posted earlier), you’ll see that 300-400nm has the lowest absorption coefficient of the wavelengths transmitted by the atmosphere.
300-400 averages about 10^-4/cm, visible about 10^-3/cm and near IR about 10^-1/cm.
Each UV photon is more energetic however.
Henry says
so, where the absorption coefficient is the lowest, the absorbance is the highest? Absorbance is the word I know, I see that in the USA it is called absorbency?.
This is why the seas are blue, looking from the top. This is where it re-radiates the most. However, the deeper the 300-400 radiation goes, the more it cannot re-radiate, so it has to move from light to warmth. Each UV photon is more energetic however…. Your words. Not mine..
If you miss understanding this, you will miss all that is coming in the future.. ,
HenryP says:
June 12, 2013 at 10:53 am
Phil. says
if you look at the graph below (which you posted earlier), you’ll see that 300-400nm has the lowest absorption coefficient of the wavelengths transmitted by the atmosphere.
300-400 averages about 10^-4/cm, visible about 10^-3/cm and near IR about 10^-1/cm.
Each UV photon is more energetic however.
Henry says
so, where the absorption coefficient is the lowest, the absorbance is the highest?
No, the lower the absorption coefficient the lower the absorbance.
Absorbance=a*L
where a is the absorption coeff and L is the pathlength.
This is why the deeper you dive the more blue it gets as the red gets absorbed closer to the surface because it has a higher ‘a’ than blue.
So using the absorbance terminology:
300-400nm A=10^-2/m
Red A=1 /m
NIR A=10/m
Absorbance is the word I know, I see that in the USA it is called absorbency?.
This is why the seas are blue, looking from the top. This is where it re-radiates the most. However, the deeper the 300-400 radiation goes, the more it cannot re-radiate, so it has to move from light to warmth. Each UV photon is more energetic however…. Your words. Not mine..
If you miss understanding this, you will miss all that is coming in the future.. ,
You do appear to misunderstand this.
Bob
“Due their abilities to penetrate the surface, they have significantly different abilities to warm the ocean.”
No they don’t. The upper tens of meters are well mixed so wavelength doesn’t matter.
“It’s been known for decades that sunlight, not infrared radiation, replenishes ocean heat during a La Nina.”
That’s not the rule. For instance SW to the surface was the same in 2011 as in 1997.
Bob Tisdale says, June 12, 2013 at 9:12 am:
“Why would you combine DSR and DLR when looking at the ocean? Due their abilities to penetrate the surface, they have significantly different abilities to warm the ocean.”
This is not why you cannot combine the two. The (measured) DSR flux is a radiative heat flux, the (inferred) DLR flux is not. Only heat, like ‘radiative heat’, has the ability to ‘heat’ the ocean. Where did this fundamental knowledge go? There is no radiative heat coming down to the ocean surface from the atmosphere. The radiative heat flux between surface and atmosphere goes up. Period.
This is the warmists greatest victory: They’ve managed to coax everyone into firmly believing their core premise, without questioning, to be an established truth, that all energy automatically equals heat, that even inferred energy flows, like from cold to hot, is heat and is thus capable of heating.
Frankly it’s as elementary as what you keep emphasizing and which also no one but a measly few seem to grasp: NINO3.4 is not ENSO.
‘Heat’ is naturally spontaneous and irreversible (‘net’) energy transfer from a warm to a cool system. This transfer only goes one way. Energy is not heat except by this definition.
If people only understood and internalised these two distinctions (ENSO is more than NINO3.4 (hey, it even rhymes!); energy is not in itself heat), the whole AGW scheme would be buried at once.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 12, 2013 at 3:31 am
Paul, since I’d never heard of Jean Dickey until you mentioned her, your attempt to claim that somehow I’ve written an “introduction to &/or summary” of her best work is … well, it seems like a curious thing, a compliment cloaked in a nasty accusation of plagiarism.
I guess the sad news is, coming from you, it’s no surprise …
As to whether you’ve viewed this as another instance of “positive shifts in [my] narrative”, first, what on earth does that mean, and second, why on earth should I care what you think about my narrative? In truth, when you say I’m going in the right direction like that, I get worried and check my compass …
In any case, thanks for posting the links to Jean Dickey’s work. However, I find nothing about emergent phenomena in what she says. Nor do I find anything about how the PDO regulates the energy throughput of the system. Nor do I find a word about how the El Nino/La Nina alteration functions as a thermally regulated heat pump moving water from the tropics to the poles, and thus helping regulate the planet’s temperature.
So while her work is very interesting, and I thank you for the links, it has nothing at all to do with what I’ve said in this post.
So at the end of the day, having finally been given your citations, I find out that either you don’t understand my work, or you don’t understand Jean Dickey’s work, or both.
Well, thanks for playing anyway. You can see why I didn’t go to look for your links—I wouldn’t have recognized them, as they had nothing at all to do with my work, my ideas, or my conclusions.
Oh, and thanks also for the nasty allegations of plagiarism. Although they reveal a most unpleasant side of your nature, they do lighten an otherwise dull evening. I particularly enjoyed the hilarious accusation that I was trying to frame the “70 year old knowledge” of Dickeys as my own, when the earliest citation to her work that you provided was from 1997 … and I’d never heard of her.
But heck, you’ve never been a man to let a fact get in the way of a derogatory insinuation …
w.