It's the Ocean not the Atmosphere, dummy!

[Stryder50]

So, the wind effects the climate then. Now you're catching on.

About as much as your fart affects the climate in your bedroom.

 

[Stryder50]

You have found ZERO experts expressing anything that supports your contention but you do nothing but keep repeating yourself. You're not just stupid, you've got some mental issues going on.

What you presented in post #17 was subject for a different thread, on "Ice Ages" maybe, but does nothing to prove the false claims of ACC/AGW from you political agenda climate extremist disinformationists.

 

[Stryder50]

The role of the ocean in storing, distributing and establishing climate is well known and well understood. Change the currents and you change the climate. Some regions are more sensitive to change than others and have more of a global impact than others. The Arctic is that region. The Little Ice age was triggered by a disruption of the ocean's heat circulation to the Arctic and that when that heat circulation was restored, the planet returned to it's natural interglacial warming trend. The contribution of the Industrial Revolution isn't nothing but all warming is not due to it. 0.22C top 0.5C is the contribution of 120 ppm of CO2.

1. The ocean stores the majority of heat the earth receives from the sun
2. The ocean holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere
3. The ocean distributes that heat to the rest of the globe using currents
4. Without ocean currents the polar regions would be colder and the equator would be hotter such that much of the planet would be inhospitable for life
5. Ocean currents are affected by density (salinity and thermal expansion) and wind.
6. Wind patterns are affected by the sun
7. If heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic were disrupted it would lead to catastrophic cooling

The following are excerpts from papers explaining the science behind the climate changes of the past 3 million years.

It is found that the global salinity variations associated with the thermohaline circulation may have a tendency to make the circulation increasingly asymmetric with respect to the equator. As a consequence the salinity difference between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean may be slowly increasing. Such a process could have a time scale long enough to be comparable with the time span between major glaciations. A speculative glaciation cycle is proposed which involves the above mentioned property of the thermohaline circulation. In this cycle the role of a Northern Hemisphere glaciation is to bring excess freshwater from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018285800201

Atlantic Ocean Circulation During the Last Ice Age​

There is strong evidence that the circulation of the deep Atlantic during the peak of the last Ice Age, or the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; ~22,000 to 19,000 years ago) was different from the modern circulation (Boyle & Keigwin 1987, Duplessy et al. 1988, Marchal & Curry 2008). Compilations of deepwater δ13C and CdW for the LGM (Figure 5) show several features that contrast with their modern distributions. Whereas much of the modern deep western Atlantic has similar δ13C values because it is filled with NADW, during the LGM, the range of δ13C values was larger than today, with higher values in NADW and lower values in AABW. The main core of high-δ13C, low-CdW NADW was at least 1000 meters shallower than today, probably because the density difference between surface waters and deep water was reduced — surface salinity may have decreased as a result of less evaporation due to colder glacial temperatures, and as a result of input of freshwater from glaciers surrounding the North Atlantic (Boyle & Keigwin 1987). In the western Atlantic, depths below ~2 km were filled with AABW. Radiocarbon data suggest that deepwater was older (Keigwin & Schlegel 2002), consistent with less NADW and more AABW as indicated by the δ13C and CdW of benthic foraminifera. Glacial δ13C data from the eastern Atlantic suggest that the boundary between glacial AABW and glacial NADW may have been shallower than in the western Atlantic (Sarnthein et al. 1994), although the difference may be the result of local effects caused by increased glacial productivity and higher rates of remineralization of low-δ13C organic carbon in the eastern basin. Inferences using other kinds of proxy data of deep Atlantic circulation are consistent with the changes inferred from δ13C, Cd/Ca and 14C of benthic foraminifera (Lynch-Steiglitz et al. 2007).

Deep Atlantic Circulation During the Last Glacial Maximum and Deglaciation​

As shown by the work of Dansgaard and his colleagues, climate oscillations of one or so millennia duration punctuate much of glacial section of the Greenland ice cores. These oscillations are characterized by 5°C air temperature changes, severalfold dust content changes and 50 ppm CO2 changes. Both the temperature and CO2 change are best explained by changes in the mode of operation of the ocean. In this paper we provide evidence which suggests that oscillations in surface water conditions of similar duration are present in the record from a deep sea core at 50°N. Based on this finding, we suggest that the Greenland climate changes are driven by oscillations in the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean which modulate the strength of the Atlantic's conveyor circulation.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/PA005i004p00469

Water Masses in the Deep Atlantic Ocean​

The Atlantic Ocean is the only ocean basin that features the transformation of surface-to-deepwater near both poles. Warm salty tropical surface waters flowing northward in the western Atlantic cool in transit to and within the high-latitude North Atlantic, releasing heat to the overlying atmosphere and increasing seawater density. Once dense enough, these waters sink and flow southward between ~ 1000 and 4000m. This North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), as it is called, flows from the Atlantic to the Southern Ocean where much of it upwells — or rises to the surface — around Antarctica, and some of it circulates Antarctica before entering the rest of the world's deep oceans. Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW), which is formed close to Antarctica, is denser than NADW, and flows northward in the Atlantic below NADW. AABW is confined to water depths below 4000 meters in the tropical and North Atlantic. Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW) flows northward above NADW. The presence of these three water masses in the Atlantic Ocean is evident in cross-sections of many water properties, including salinity, phosphate concentration and carbon isotope ratios (Figure 2). The residence time of deepwater in the western Atlantic is approximately 100 years (Broecker 1979), meaning that the average water parcel spends about a century in the deep Atlantic.

Why is Deep Water Formed in the Atlantic and not the Pacific?​

Warren (1983) first noted that the difference in salinity between the North Pacific and the North Atlantic (Figure 1) was the principal reason deep water formation occurs today only in the North Atlantic. Salty water, when cooled, achieves a higher density and is thus able to sink to greater depth in the water column. Wintertime cooling occurs in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but since the surface waters of the North Atlantic are much closer in salinity to the mean of the ocean's deep water, they achieve a density high enough to sink to great water depths. Warren (1983) noted that the salinity of the North Pacific was low because of relatively low evaporation, little exchange with salty tropical waters, and an influx of fresh water from precipitation and river runoff. Emile-Geay et al.(2003) reevaluated the Warren (1983) results and fundamentally confirmed his thesis, noting that atmospheric moisture transport from the Asian monsoon was also an important source of fresh water to the North Pacific not originally considered by Warren. Interestingly, Warren also noted that the North Atlantic had much greater river runoff than the North Pacific, so its higher surface salinities must be the result of greater evaporation in the Atlantic basin.

Broecker et al. (1990a) noted that higher Atlantic salinities are the result of a net transfer of water vapor from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the Isthmus of Panama, equivalent to approximately 0.35 Sverdrup (106 m3 per second). In the absence of other processes, this would raise the salinity of the Atlantic by about 1 salinity unit each 1000 years. If the Atlantic salinity is in balance, then it must be exporting the excess salt (enough to compensate for the lost fresh water) through ocean circulation processes. Today this is occurring through the production and export of North Atlantic Deep Water.
At times in the past, rapid melting of ice sheets surrounding the North Atlantic was great enough to alter surface salinities, likely reducing the density of deep water formed, and slowing the export of deep water from the North Atlantic. Broecker et al. (1990b) hypothesized that natural oscillations in the rate of water vapor exchange between the Atlantic and the Pacific during the last glacial period were responsible for the rapid, short term fluctuation ocean circulation linked to the abrupt millennial-scale Dansgaard-Oeschger Events seen in the Greenland ice cores (Figure 9).

Deep Atlantic Circulation During the Last Glacial Maximum and Deglaciation​

What Replaces the Deep Water that Leaves the Atlantic?​

There are three main pathways for water to return to the North Atlantic and renew NADW, a warm-water route and two cold water routes (Figure 3). The "warm-water route" begins with the flow of surface and thermocline water from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian Seas. Both colder return flows involve Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW), described above. AAIW enters the southern South Atlantic through the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America, with some flowing into the Atlantic and some flowing into the Indian Ocean. AAIW also enters the Indian Ocean from south of Tasmania and flows westward towards Africa, where it joins the warm-water flow and the other branch of AAIW before rounding southern Africa, entering the South Atlantic, and flowing northward (Gordon 1985, Speich et al. 2002). Along its transit to the North Atlantic, AAIW from the Drake Passage, flowing above Tasman AAIW, mixes with overlying water and contributes to the "warm-water route" (Gordon 1986). These return flows provide a significant source of heat to high northern latitudes. Together, southward flow of water in the deep Atlantic and its shallower return flows are a large component of what is known as the global Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC).

Deep Atlantic Circulation During the Last Glacial Maximum and Deglaciation​

Great thread idea.
Sorry I missed noting it when originally presented.

 

[ding]

The distinction here is between regional drivers and global energy balance. Northern hemisphere glaciation certainly changes circulation patterns and local temperatures. It can trigger abrupt regional cooling, but it does so by redistributing energy within the system, not by adding or removing energy from the planet. Orbital forcing sets the stage by changing incoming solar distribution, and feedbacks like ice-albedo amplify the effect. Today, the measured net planetary energy imbalance (+1 W/m2) is caused by reduced outgoing longwave radiation from greenhouse gases. So yes, Arctic ice can modulate climate, but it does not generate the global net warming we are observing, CO2 forcing does.

What part of when the northern hemisphere glaciates the planet becomes net cooling don't you understand? And when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the planet becomes net warming?

The northern hemisphere glaciating and deglaciating is what causes temperature swings at the south pole. .

 

[ding]

Northern hemisphere glaciation certainly changes circulation patterns and local temperatures.

And affects the temperature of the entire planet, oceans and atmosphere. Just like when the northern hemisphere deglaciates it affects the temperature of the entire planet, oceans and atmosphere. The empirical climate evidence of the south pole is irrefutable.

It can trigger abrupt regional cooling, but it does so by redistributing energy within the system, not by adding or removing energy from the planet.

No one said anything about redistributing energy. It doesn't add or remove heat. It affects albedo which affects the earth's energy balance. Please stop misstating what I am saying. Or I'll start doing the same to you when you argue CO2 affects the earth's energy balance.

 

[ding]

Orbital forcing sets the stage by changing incoming solar distribution, and feedbacks like ice-albedo amplify the effect.

Orbital forcing is a joke. Slow acting forces can't cause abrupt climate changes. Everyone knows that the AMOC is responsible for circulating heat to the Arctic and if that heat circulation is removed, the climate of the Arctic will change abruptly. The feed back from spreading glaciers amplifies the initial cooling cause by disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic such that extensive continental glaciation will occur and further reduce the earth's energy balance. So much so that this regional event affects worldwide temperatures that impact even Antarctica. The reverse is also true. As the northern hemisphere degalaciates it alters the energy budget to net warming which affects the entire planet even the south pole.

 

[ding]

Arctic ice can modulate climate, but it does not generate the global net warming...

The empirical climate evidence of the geologic record disagrees with you. You can't explain glacial cycles - which are worldwide events - without glaciation and deglaciation of the northern hemisphere.

...it does not generate the global net warming we are observing, CO2 forcing does.

It would if they ever history matched the glacial cycles because then they would discover the planet continues to warm until the next glacial period is triggered by disruption of heat to the Arctic. Which is exactly what the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record shows.

 

[ding]

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it bullshit. The physics are measurable, the energy flows are quantifiable, and the observational record confirms it. Complexity doesn’t equal falsehood.

The physics of direct radiative forcing, yes. The feedback from direct radiative forcing, no.

 

[Anomalism]

What part of when the northern hemisphere glaciates the planet becomes net cooling don't you understand? And when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the planet becomes net warming?

The northern hemisphere glaciating and deglaciating is what causes temperature swings at the south pole. .

View attachment 1218247

View attachment 1218249

You’re still mixing up correlation with mechanism. Yes, when the northern hemisphere glaciates, the planet cools, and when it deglaciates, it warms. That’s an empirical pattern. But the glaciation itself is not the cause of the net energy change, it’s a response to it. Ice sheets grow or shrink because the global energy balance shifts first, and then ice albedo and circulation amplify that shift. The Antarctic responds because the climate system is coupled, not because Arctic ice is somehow injecting or removing energy from the planet. Ice changes the distribution and reflection of energy; it doesn’t create a planetary energy surplus or deficit. That surplus/deficit comes from radiative forcing. You’re treating the most visible symptom as the prime mover, when in physics it’s the boundary condition that actually sets whether the whole system gains or loses heat.

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re still mixing up correlation with mechanism. Yes, when the northern hemisphere glaciates, the planet cools, and when it deglaciates, it warms. That’s an empirical pattern. But the glaciation itself is not the cause of the net energy change, it’s a response to it. Ice sheets grow or shrink because the global energy balance shifts first, and then ice albedo and circulation amplify that shift. The Antarctic responds because the climate system is coupled, not because Arctic ice is somehow injecting or removing energy from the planet. Ice changes the distribution and reflection of energy; it doesn’t create a planetary energy surplus or deficit. That surplus/deficit comes from radiative forcing. You’re treating the most visible symptom as the prime mover, when in physics it’s the boundary condition that actually sets whether the whole system gains or loses heat.

Correlations are positive negative significant or insignificant. Correlations that try to link human CO2 have all been insignificant. Simply put invalid.

 

[Anomalism]

And affects the temperature of the entire planet, oceans and atmosphere. Just like when the northern hemisphere deglaciates it affects the temperature of the entire planet, oceans and atmosphere. The empirical climate evidence of the south pole is irrefutable.

No one said anything about redistributing energy. It doesn't add or remove heat. It affects albedo which affects the earth's energy balance. Please stop misstating what I am saying. Or I'll start doing the same to you when you argue CO2 affects the earth's energy balance.

Orbital forcing is a joke. Slow acting forces can't cause abrupt climate changes. Everyone knows that the AMOC is responsible for circulating heat to the Arctic and if that heat circulation is removed, the climate of the Arctic will change abruptly. The feed back from spreading glaciers amplifies the initial cooling cause by disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic such that extensive continental glaciation will occur and further reduce the earth's energy balance. So much so that this regional event affects worldwide temperatures that impact even Antarctica. The reverse is also true. As the northern hemisphere degalaciates it alters the energy budget to net warming which affects the entire planet even the south pole.

The empirical climate evidence of the geologic record disagrees with you. You can't explain glacial cycles - which are worldwide events - without glaciation and deglaciation of the northern hemisphere.


It would if they ever history matched the glacial cycles because then they would discover the planet continues to warm until the next glacial period is triggered by disruption of heat to the Arctic. Which is exactly what the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record shows.

View attachment 1218259

The physics of direct radiative forcing, yes. The feedback from direct radiative forcing, no.

You’re still collapsing three different things into one: trigger, feedback, and energy source. Yes, northern hemisphere glaciation affects the entire planet via albedo and circulation. But that’s a feedback, not a primary driver. Ice albedo amplifies a change in energy balance; it does not create it from nothing. Something has to shift the radiative budget first. In the past that something was orbital forcing, with AMOC and ice feedbacks amplifying the response. Today, that something is greenhouse forcing, which is directly measured as reduced outgoing longwave radiation. AMOC can absolutely cause abrupt regional shifts by redistributing heat, but redistribution cannot change the planet’s total energy, only radiative forcing can.

That’s basic thermodynamics.

As for “feedback not being quantifiable”: it literally is. Climate sensitivity is empirically constrained from paleoclimate, satellite radiation budgets, and volcanic responses. Feedbacks aren’t mystical handwaving. They’re measured in W/m2 per C. The geological record doesn’t contradict this; it confirms it. Orbital forcing > initial energy shift > circulation + ice feedbacks → global response. You’re mistaking the most dramatic visible effect for the root cause, when in physics the root cause is always the boundary condition on energy in vs energy out. Ice moves the dial. Radiation sets where the dial can go.

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re still collapsing three different things into one: trigger, feedback, and energy source. Yes, northern hemisphere glaciation affects the entire planet via albedo and circulation. But that’s a feedback, not a primary driver. Ice albedo amplifies a change in energy balance; it does not create it from nothing. Something has to shift the radiative budget first. In the past that something was orbital forcing, with AMOC and ice feedbacks amplifying the response. Today, that something is greenhouse forcing, which is directly measured as reduced outgoing longwave radiation. AMOC can absolutely cause abrupt regional shifts by redistributing heat, but redistribution cannot change the planet’s total energy, only radiative forcing can.

That’s basic thermodynamics.

As for “feedback not being quantifiable”: it literally is. Climate sensitivity is empirically constrained from paleoclimate, satellite radiation budgets, and volcanic responses. Feedbacks aren’t mystical handwaving. They’re measured in W/m2 per C. The geological record doesn’t contradict this; it confirms it. Orbital forcing > initial energy shift > circulation + ice feedbacks → global response. You’re mistaking the most dramatic visible effect for the root cause, when in physics the root cause is always the boundary condition on energy in vs energy out. Ice moves the dial. Radiation sets where the dial can go.

Trump is now removing by order that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so the government will no longer be able to regulate it

 

[Anomalism]

Trump is now removing by order that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so the government will no longer be able to regulate it

That’s political, not physics.

 

[Hafar1014]

That’s political, not physics.

Its going to save the nation billions, make cars safer, and remove many oppressive useless regulations. Science is 100% poltical

 

[Anomalism]

Science is 100% poltical

No, it's not. You're just doing science a disservice by making it political. You'd rather stay loyal to your tribe than accept reality.

 

[ding]

You’re still mixing up correlation with mechanism. Yes, when the northern hemisphere glaciates, the planet cools, and when it deglaciates, it warms. That’s an empirical pattern. But the glaciation itself is not the cause of the net energy change, it’s a response to it. Ice sheets grow or shrink because the global energy balance shifts first, and then ice albedo and circulation amplify that shift. The Antarctic responds because the climate system is coupled, not because Arctic ice is somehow injecting or removing energy from the planet. Ice changes the distribution and reflection of energy; it doesn’t create a planetary energy surplus or deficit. That surplus/deficit comes from radiative forcing. You’re treating the most visible symptom as the prime mover, when in physics it’s the boundary condition that actually sets whether the whole system gains or loses heat.

I'm not mixing up correlation with mechanism. You are playing word games. When the northern hemisphere glaciates the planet becomes net cooling. The cause for said glaciation is disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic. The cause for that is changes in salinity (ice melt) and density (thermal). The cause for that is temperature.

You are smoking dope if you don't believe the planet changes from net warming to net cooling because of northern hemisphere glaciation. And that the planet changes from net cooling to net warming because of northern hemisphere deglaciation. Both of which affect albedo which amplifies the changes.

You say ice sheets grow or shrink because the global energy balance shifts first because you don't accept the ocean as driving the climate of the planet. You believe orbital forcing does which is a joke.

 

[ding]

You’re still collapsing three different things into one: trigger, feedback, and energy source. Yes, northern hemisphere glaciation affects the entire planet via albedo and circulation. But that’s a feedback, not a primary driver. Ice albedo amplifies a change in energy balance; it does not create it from nothing. Something has to shift the radiative budget first. In the past that something was orbital forcing, with AMOC and ice feedbacks amplifying the response. Today, that something is greenhouse forcing, which is directly measured as reduced outgoing longwave radiation. AMOC can absolutely cause abrupt regional shifts by redistributing heat, but redistribution cannot change the planet’s total energy, only radiative forcing can.

That’s basic thermodynamics.

As for “feedback not being quantifiable”: it literally is. Climate sensitivity is empirically constrained from paleoclimate, satellite radiation budgets, and volcanic responses. Feedbacks aren’t mystical handwaving. They’re measured in W/m2 per C. The geological record doesn’t contradict this; it confirms it. Orbital forcing > initial energy shift > circulation + ice feedbacks → global response. You’re mistaking the most dramatic visible effect for the root cause, when in physics the root cause is always the boundary condition on energy in vs energy out. Ice moves the dial. Radiation sets where the dial can go.

No. I am explaining how changes to oceans currents cause abrupt glaciation and deglaciation in the northern hemisphere. Orbital forcing does next to nothing. It has about the same effect as changes in solar intensity. Which is next to nothing.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm not mixing up correlation with mechanism. You are playing word games. When the northern hemisphere glaciates the planet becomes net cooling. The cause for said glaciation is disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic. The cause for that is changes in salinity (ice melt) and density (thermal). The cause for that is temperature.

You are smoking dope if you don't believe the planet changes from net warming to net cooling because of northern hemisphere glaciation. And that the planet changes from net cooling to net warming because of northern hemisphere deglaciation. Both of which affect albedo which amplifies the changes.

You say ice sheets grow or shrink because the global energy balance shifts first because you don't accept the ocean as driving the climate of the planet. You believe orbital forcing does which is a joke.

No. I am explaining how changes to oceans currents cause abrupt glaciation and deglaciation in the northern hemisphere. Orbital forcing does next to nothing. It has about the same effect as changes in solar intensity. Which is next to nothing.

Ocean circulation can absolutely trigger abrupt regional changes. The AMOC can redistribute heat between hemispheres and cause rapid shifts like the Younger Dryas. No disagreement there. But redistribution is not the same thing as changing the planet’s total energy. If the ocean moves heat from north to south, the global average energy content doesn’t increase or decrease; it just shifts location.

Glaciation requires a sustained net energy deficit. Deglaciation requires a sustained net energy surplus. Ocean currents can rearrange heat and amplify changes through albedo and feedbacks, but they cannot create a long term global radiative imbalance on their own. Only changes in incoming solar radiation, planetary reflectivity, or greenhouse gas concentrations can do that. That’s conservation of energy, not word games.

And orbital forcing is not next to nothing. The global mean change in annual mean insolation is small, but the seasonal and latitudinal redistribution is large enough to control whether high latitude summers melt ice sheets or allow them to grow. That’s why ice ages line up with orbital cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. The ocean responds to that forcing; it doesn’t invent it.

Circulation is powerful. But it’s a feedback and amplifier within the boundary conditions set by radiative forcing. If you remove the boundary condition, you don’t get the sustained glacial cycles observed in the geological record. That’s thermodynamics applied to a rotating fluid planet orbiting a star.