Comments
New Ocean Heat Content Paper Supports Tsonis et al ‘Climate Shifts’
A new paper by Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009 entitled: ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance’ Physics letters A, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.07.023, uses heat content of the climate system in Joules in order to diagnose global warming and cooling.
The Abstract states:
Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.
The summary states:
We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.
Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical predictions.
Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.
Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.
August 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am
The support of climate shifts is not, IMAO, the most important finding, which in fact is “A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.”
This strongly implies a very insensitive climate system! For instance:
Climate Response Times: Dependence on Climate Sensitivity and Ocean Mixing
J. HANSEN 1, G. RUSSELL 1, A. LACIS 1, I. FUNG 1, D. RIND 1, and P. STONE 2
Science 30 August 1985:
Vol. 229. no. 4716, pp. 857 – 859
DOI: 10.1126/science.229.4716.857
Where they say “The factors that determine climate response times were investigated with simple models and scaling statements. The response times are particularly sensitive to (i) the amount that the climate response is amplified by feedbacks and (ii) the representation of ocean mixing.” among other things which are stupid.
Alternatively, there’s:
R.S. Lindzen and C. Giannitsis (1998) On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5929-5941.
Which not only noted the dependence of time constants on sensitivity is very strong, but directly tested the time constants proposed by Hansen et al. as implying “most of the expected warming attributable to trace gases added to the atmosphere by man probably has not yet occurred” and naturally that the climate is rather sensitive. Naturally, they found that such long time constants are not supported-consistent with Douglass and Knox’s findings, which strongly implies that the time constants CANNOT be long. They also showed this in other studies, such as:
Douglass D.H. and R.S. Knox (2005), Climate forcing by the volcano eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L05710.doi: 10.1029/2004GL022119.
Douglass, D. H., E. G. Blackman, and R. S. Knox, (2004), Temperature response of Earth to the annual solar irradiance cycle, Phys. Lett. A, 323, 315-322, 2004
August 17th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Getting close to the ideas I have been promulgating for over a year now.
The solar input varies over century timescales, the rate of energy release from ocean to air varies over multidecadal timescales with the PDO as the largest component.
Those two interacting variables are not directly (but might be indirectly) linked and usually supplement or offset one another to some degree at any given moment.
The latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems occur virtually instantly in response to the net level of GLOBAL energy release from oceans to air at any given time. We can already see that in connection with the current stuttering El Nino.
Seasonal variations around the globe give the mix an extra stir.
I particularly like this bit:
For more detail see my series of articles here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=37
August 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Oh dear, no edit function and there’s a typo. Please ignore the words ‘I particularly like this bit:’ which were carried over in error.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:19 am
This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
as quoted by:
The National Geophysical Data Center
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/
Hence, I am tempted to state:
CO2 theorists are wrong
Henrik Svensmark is wrong
Nicola Scafetta is wrong
August 20th, 2009 at 6:04 am
You could well be correct!
August 20th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
The Geomagnetic Chart is updated
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif