Changes in net flow of ocean heat correlate with past climate anomalies

August 14, 2009
Indian Ocean

Topographic/bathymetric map of the Indian Ocean region. Image: Wikimedia Commons

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.

These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth's climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

The physicists also say these changes in ocean direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth's .

The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth's climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.

"These shifts happened relatively abruptly," says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. "One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation."

Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.

The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.

The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring "warming in the pipeline." Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

"An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed," says Knox. "The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various depths up to 750 meters." The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.

The team notes that it's impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

Source: University of Rochester (news : web)

4.2 /5 (15 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
Aug 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
It's very preliminary, but very interesting.
Mr_Frontier
Aug 14, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Looks like it's time to recalculate those AGW models again. This time it's in the name of science!
zevkirsh
Aug 14, 2009

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
our current understanding is almost useless. most of what goes on in the ocean is because of the interaction between the ocean floor and the bottom of the ocean. heat radiates upwards from the floor up, ocean heat does not radiate from the top of the ocean down to the floor, regardless of what the atmosphere is doing.

the only information on how much aggregate heat is coming from the ocean floor to the bottom of the actual ocean is EXTREMELY LIMITED.

this seems like such an obvious fact to the layperson that , one wonders how scientists can draw any seeming conclusions when the certainty about the lack of information we yet possess is so high.

it remains a great challenge to collect all this data as well. as far as i know, sattelites cannot gather this information. the only way to know is to sample the bottom of the ocean by going there, many times and in many locations.

also, statistically, hot spots tend to occur in clusters, so it could be that 90% of the occean heat comes from the bottom of the ocean, and 90% of this heat comes from 10 relatively small hot-regions around the world ( some of which would presumably be aligned around the pacific ring of fire.....
, so we cannot really make good conclusions until we really have heat mapped 95 to 99%all of the bottom of the oceans.
mo411
Aug 14, 2009

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (5)
About ten years ago a shift took place... know what else happened about ten years ago?

Care to Guess?

Multiple planetary conjunctions.

I kid you not. This created a tidal effect few could fathom within the liquid core of all of us, including the star. Ask why the star is so quiet now?

It is simple physics where we will eventually find the key to understanding global climate. We will find the sun, moon and our neighbors have far more to do with the temperature then anything Gore and his brethren at the UN could ever conceive. As soon as scientist stop drinking the tap water in Washington we will all be better off...
Mr_Frontier
Aug 14, 2009

Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
We can't even exactly or completely model how a cube of differential temperature spreads with molecular precision. I commend the effort on more detailed and real time climate modelling, which is hard enough. Sensors and data first, modelling second.

If your car has a complicated problem with it, you don't just take it to the mechanic and let him diagnose it without running tests, taking data, and using past experience to evaluate the solution. If he makes you repair every single part one by one, until he gets to the actual part needing repair, he is selling an inefficient solution based on incomplete sets of inexperience and likely guesstimation.

Give me your real time sensor data, your educated intuition, your analyzed core samples; anything that is a fortified and redundant compilation of the evidence to the problem, and the world can work diligently to develop an appropriate solution.

Counting up carbon credits, ppm, global averages and predicting long term weather patterns are inconclusive, misunderstood, and highly unprofessional.

If we yell wolf too many times, we won't get the real-time support one needs to politically/scientifically tackle a problem.

Don't lay your idle, inexperienced, and nervous hand on my delicate engine, we need professionals working on it. Do it right the first time.





brant
Aug 15, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
"These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth's climate, say the researchers."

Anomalies assumes that we know how the earth works....
Nartoon
Aug 16, 2009

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"ocean heat does not radiate from the top of the ocean down to the floor, regardless of what the atmosphere is doing." True, but the water doesn't just lay there, it intermingles in a vast way.
Noumenon
Aug 16, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (25)
Eventually we will all look back on this AGW fad and have a big laugh.
3432682
Aug 17, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
This article spotlights how little we know. Funny how the AGW folks are all positive they know the answer. Of course, they do not. But they sure are making a nice living spreading their story - $10 billion per year in AGW studies. And the greenies gripe about Exxon money funding skeptics (which is a pittance).
Rank 4.2 /5 (15 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Calculating Electrostatic force between parallel plates
    created1 hour ago
  • Strength of induced magnetic field inside an inductor
    created4 hours ago
  • increasing time of daylight
    created5 hours ago
  • Light & Sight
    created5 hours ago
  • Wind Turbine Power
    created8 hours ago
  • Steam Table issues
    created10 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...

Physics / Condensed Matter

created 4 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Hovering not hard if you're top-heavy, researchers find

Top-heavy structures are more likely to maintain their balance while hovering in the air than are those that bear a lower center of gravity, researchers at New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences ...

Physics / General Physics

created 5 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1 | with audio podcast

SLAC, Stanford team focuses on high-energy electrons to treat cancer

Accelerator physicists at SLAC and cancer specialists from Stanford are working on a new technology that could dramatically reduce the time needed for cancer radiation treatments. The team ran an initial experiment ...

Physics / General Physics

created 8 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

Measurements from high-energy collisions lead to better understanding of why meson particles disappear

For several years, physicists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), USA, have studied an unusual state of matter called the quark–gluon plasma, which they ...

Physics / General Physics

created 8 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

Explained: Sigma

It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 09, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (15) | comments 46


Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets

Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.

NASA sees wide-eyed cyclone Jasmine

Cyclone Jasmine's eye has opened wider on NASA satellite imagery, as it moves through the Southern Pacific Ocean.

NASA sees Giovanna reach cyclone strength, threaten Madagascar

Tropical Storm 12S built up steam and became a cyclone on February 10, 2012 as NASA's Terra satellite passed overhead. Residents of east-central Madagascar should prepare for this cyclone to make landfall ...

CIA website offline, Anonymous takes credit

The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was unresponsive on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.

Complex wiring of the nervous system may rely on a just a handful of genes and proteins

Researchers at the Salk Institute have discovered a startling feature of early brain development that helps to explain how complex neuron wiring patterns are programmed using just a handful of critical genes. ...

The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males

A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...