Water density and ice density changes with temperature changes are magically different from other materials. The magical properties of water and the abundance of water in all of its states is the key to the wonderful climate on earth.
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by niclewis
franktoo: ” The current forcing is about 2.7 W/m2″
Relative to when – 1750? To estimate ECS using forcing and heat uptake data, one needs to have usable global temperature data as well, so forcing and heat uptake both need to be estimated for post-1850 time periods. Forcing relative to 1750 was pretty small in the 3rd quarter of the 19th century. But absolute heat uptake is estimated to be non-negligibly positive from 1850 to 1882. See LC15 and LC18.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by niclewis
None whatsoever. LC18 used data from Cheng.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by jacksmith4tx
I think this obsession with measuring temperatures is distracting from a more intractable and wicked problem, pollution.
Which two environmental factors will have the biggest long term negative effect on the biosphere?
1) The modest rise in ocean temperature and sea levels in 50-70 years?
or
2) The accelerating changes in the chemical composition of the water?
“Around 20 billion tons of waste per year ends up directly in the oceans.”
https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-defusing-the-toxic-timebomb-of-invisible-ocean-pollutants-94083
Details in report:
https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-ocean-pollutants-v2_1-en-web.pdf
As Curry noted in a recent tweet about ocean brine discharges and the rapid increase of dead zones, it’s what’s IN the water that should worry us.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Curious George
Do I understand correctly that they have much more detailed data for years 1 to 1750 than ever since?
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by teerhuis
Javier,
Thank you for your reply.
I assume that the events that led to the Younger Dryas prevented an overshoot such as MIS5e. I agree that the dynamics for a similar overshoot now are not present, but I meant to refer to anthropogenic forcing. I am not certain the temperature will stay below that of the Holocene Climate Optimum.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Tony Banton
“Water is abundant, water changes state, water, in all of its changing states, is the primary internal regulator of climate.”
Never considered the fact that water condenses and CO2 doesn’t.
As in what that means?
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Tony Banton
“The results, summarised in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the radiative forcing by non-condensing GHGs is essential to sustain the atmospheric
temperatures that are needed for significant levels
of water vapour and cloud feedback. Without this
non-condensable GHG forcing, the physics of this
model send the climate of Earth plunging rapidly
and irrevocably to an icebound state, though perhaps not to total ocean freeze-over”
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
At some point those calling themselves skeptics have to start admitting that CO2 is the primary forcing.
I am fully prepared to do it as soon as the evidence shows it. No conclusive evidence has been produced. Not even strong evidence. I am not believing in the absence of evidence because that isn’t different from religion.
The evidence that we have is that CO2 and temperature are anti-correlated during the past 10,000 years, and during the past 50 million years. They only correlate during the past 800,000 years when we know that CO2 is not responsible for the observed climate change, because it takes place at orbital frequencies.
So the evidence supports that CO2 is not the primary climate forcing, and at some point those believing CO2 is the primary forcing have to start admitting that it is not.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
“The results, summarised in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the radiative forcing by non-condensing GHGs is essential to sustain the atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of water vapour and cloud feedback.
For that you need about 40 ppm at most. The planet will get in serious trouble if it gets below that.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
So you keep saying Alex.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
Ron,
As far as I know vertical mixing of the ocean depends only on two things that have a similar magnitude. Wind strength that affects the upper layers and that is decreasing with global warming, and tidal strength that goes all the way to the bottom and goes with astronomical cycles. The effect of increasing vertical mixing is cooling, but luckily it appears not to be a major cause of climate change during the present interglacial.
DOs are no longer a mystery. A burst of articles over the last decade have clarified them. They occur very specifically at the Iceland-Scotland ridge and the Nordic Seas, they require glacial conditions with sea levels at least 30 m. below current and very extensive sea-ice. They require meltwater production that builds a particular ocean subsurface stratification where warm waters from the North Atlantic Current are layered below a cold salty halocline that is below a cold freshwater layer. When meltwater production decreases the intrinsically unstable stratification collapses releasing the accumulated heat from the warm water layer in a very short time span.
They are warming events and can’t happen during an interglacial because the conditions are not present.
There are some papers discussing changes to oceanic currents during deglaciation, but it is difficult to distinguish how much is due to the changes in sea level.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
I meant to refer to anthropogenic forcing. I am not certain the temperature will stay below that of the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Well nobody knows that. The current most favored hypothesis is that the Ice Age has been cancelled for tens of thousands of years, perhaps millions. But it has so many assumptions in it that it isn’t worth the ink to print it.
The disparity between the huge change in CO2 levels we have caused and the mild temperature response we are observing, a great deal of which is probably contributed by natural factors, suggests climate is not very sensitive to CO2 changes.
We have been very lucky. By recklessly releasing all that CO2 we could really have messed up the climate of the planet. It is a very good thing that the planet is responding so little, but we didn’t think about it before doing it. Homo sapiens we are not.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
I would be more sympathetic if I hadn’t discussed the desalination study above.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/#comment-887760
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Wagathon
At a time when the state of the art among prominent alarmists is that global warming is real but hiding deep in the ocean where it is currently undetectable by modern science– we’re talking about something that is really more ‘art’ and politics than logic and ‘science’ or perhaps more likely, a chimera in that it can only be hypothesized… nothing more than a modern day, spirituality-based spoken word that’s based on feelings, emotions and fears instead of objective observations, a recognition of the intrinsic nature of things, historical references or even a reverence for truth.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by jacksmith4tx
Sorry I missed your earlier comment. I always figured you would would lean toward #2 being the bigger problem.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Turbulent Eddie
OHC consideration always raises three factors with me:
1. Pielke Sr’s point that because ocean involve a lot of millenial scale turnover, OHC increases are essentially lost to the climate system, so OHC increase is a moderator of climate change.
2. Were no horizontal mixing to occur, and the theory of ocean uptake of atmospheric imbalance to be accurate, one would expect low and mid-latitude ocean temperatures at depth to approximate the surface temperatures. This does not happen. While there is some mixing indicated by the temperature gradients, even below 2000m, the greatest depths are marked by temperatures much closer to 0C than to surface temperatures. Polar deep water formation appears to dominate diffusion.
3. The higher surface temperature anomalies climb with respect to ocean temperatures, the more stable the ocean profiles become, which opposes further mixing ( which would manifest in increased temperature trends and decreased OHC trends if so ).
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
AGW has sucked the oxygen out of public discourse on critical social and environmental concerns for 30 years.
But the 5th estate is always superficial and agenda driven.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by curryja
#3 is important; ocean surface heating and cooling are not symmetrical
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ron Graf
As far as I know vertical mixing of the ocean depends only on two things…
Do you believe that the LIA or any other cooling events could have been caused by a change in ocean currents?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
