It's the Ocean not the Atmosphere, dummy!

[BackAgain]

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​

I understood a fair amount of all that.

I hadn’t read it until today, about two years later.

Very informative post.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Air temperature does change faster than water temperature, but heat will always travel from hotter to colder. Point a blow dryer at a glass of ice. Probably more extreme than you would find in nature, but it adequately demonstrates the principle That's the way it works.

Dumbest post of the month.

If you look at the overall energy balance, that means nothing. You are talking about a driving force. But there is also resistance. Convective heat transfer is much much slower than conductive heat transfer.

It's amazing we survive as a country with the stupidity we graduate.

 

[HikerGuy83]

View attachment 983616

Are we learning yet?

You should have the density of both on there. At atmospheric conditions, 380 cubic feet of air weighs 29 lbs. 380 cubic feet of water weights (380 * 62.4) lbs. Water has much much higher thermal mass density.

And the thermal mass compared to the relatively small interface area is also important.

The conductive heat transfer coefficient is pretty small.

Hence aire probably gives next to no energy to the water.

 

[ding]

Ocean circulation can absolutely trigger abrupt regional changes.

All glacial cycles begin in the northern hemisphere region and end in the northern hemisphere region and have global impacts.

 

[ding]

But redistribution is not the same thing as changing the planet’s total energy.

Albedo changes from spreading and receding extensive continental glaciation does.

 

[ding]

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.

When the AMOC collapses that thinking will stop. They will realize that abrupt climate changes can't be caused by gradual orbital changes.

 

[Anomalism]

When the AMOC collapses that thinking will stop. They will realize that abrupt climate changes can't be caused by gradual orbital changes.

The AMOC collapse scenario actually supports the orbital forcing framework.

Orbital forcing sets the boundary conditions. It determines the long term energy distribution that allows ice sheets to grow or shrink over tens of thousands of years. The AMOC and other ocean circulation patterns operate within those boundary conditions as amplification mechanisms.

When the AMOC weakens or collapses, it causes abrupt regional temperature changes by redistributing heat that's already in the climate system, warming the southern hemisphere while cooling the north Atlantic region. These circulation changes don't alter Earth's total energy budget; they move existing heat around.

The abrupt change from gradual forcing pattern is actually expected in nonlinear systems. Gradual orbital changes slowly build up continental ice sheets. Eventually, enough meltwater enters the north Atlantic to disrupt the AMOC. That's the abrupt response. The ice sheets wouldn't have been there to melt without the gradual orbital forcing first creating the conditions for their growth.

The paleoclimate record shows both mechanisms working together. Orbital cycles set the pace of glacial-interglacial transitions over 100,000 year timescales, while circulation changes like AMOC disruptions create the abrupt regional swings superimposed on those longer trends. They're not competing explanations. They're operating at different timescales in the same system.

 

[ding]

The AMOC collapse scenario actually supports the orbital forcing framework.

Orbital forcing sets the boundary conditions. It determines the long term energy distribution that allows ice sheets to grow or shrink over tens of thousands of years. The AMOC and other ocean circulation patterns operate within those boundary conditions as amplification mechanisms.

When the AMOC weakens or collapses, it causes abrupt regional temperature changes by redistributing heat that's already in the climate system, warming the southern hemisphere while cooling the north Atlantic region. These circulation changes don't alter Earth's total energy budget; they move existing heat around.

The abrupt change from gradual forcing pattern is actually expected in nonlinear systems. Gradual orbital changes slowly build up continental ice sheets. Eventually, enough meltwater enters the north Atlantic to disrupt the AMOC. That's the abrupt response. The ice sheets wouldn't have been there to melt without the gradual orbital forcing first creating the conditions for their growth.

The paleoclimate record shows both mechanisms working together. Orbital cycles set the pace of glacial-interglacial transitions over 100,000 year timescales, while circulation changes like AMOC disruptions create the abrupt regional swings superimposed on those longer trends. They're not competing explanations. They're operating at different timescales in the same system.

Orbital forcing is a red herring. Look at D-O Events.

 

[EMH]

^^^^^^^^^^


Two absolutely treasonous moron "faux skeptics" accepting all of CO2 FRAUD's bullshit and using big words to blur the issue.

Their theory is translated into "water causes ice" ... yet even a third grader would notice water is too warm to do that....

 

[toobfreak]

The role of the ocean in storing, distributing and establishing climate is well known and well understood.

Not just the climate, but the weather as well, as routinely demonstrated by things such as El Nino events.

Some regions are more sensitive to change than others and have more of a global impact than others.

Obviously because some changes hit certain regions in a way to effect a sort of positive feedback on the region exacerbating an undesirable condition making it even worse while other effects hit other regions in a way to effect a sort of negative feedback on the region where factors in the area tend to cancel out the oceanic effects rather than be further triggered by them, thus making some regions more sensitive (or responsive) while others less.

The ocean stores the majority of heat the earth receives from the sun. The ocean holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere.

And does anyone find that surprising? Consider two major factors:

1. The atmosphere is largely transparent to IR radiation so, most IR passes straight through the atmosphere and does not convert to nor get stored as IR until it strikes something first, usually the ocean itself or land, or to a far smaller degree, water droplets in the atmosphere, thus most atmospheric heating comes from a rebounding effect.
2. There is about 275X the mass to the ocean as to the atmosphere. That is like 275 ocean batteries to every single atmospheric battery, and mass equates to storage capacity. I base that on the best figures I could find on the estimated mass of each, then converted each to standard english tonnage. I came up with a mean mass of about

1,500,000,000,000,000,000 tons for the ocean compared to just
5,500,000,000,000,000 tons to the atmosphere, both assumed measured from about sea level.

Add to that the density and nature of water is such as to have far greater heat capacity in holding heat in the first place.

Finally, realize that the ocean holds about 97% of all water on the Earth, making our supply of fresh water all that more essential, critical and limited, obviating the argument that water is unlimited and that we can afford to support any increase in population without consequences. Indeed, all of our resources from simple water to the electricity that powers our homes is limited, and we cannot just desalinate unlimited water nor generate unlimited electricity, as with each increase comes consequences.

 

[EMH]

Finally, realize that the ocean holds about 97% of all water on the Earth, making our supply of fresh water all that more essential, critical and limited, obviating the argument that water is unlimited and that we can afford to support any increase in population without consequences. Indeed, all of our resources from simple water to the electricity that powers our homes is limited, and we cannot just desalinate unlimited water nor generate unlimited electricity, as with each increase comes consequences.

SPOT ON, that part.


While they can blabber all day about glaciation and orbital forcing and ice sheets, planet Earth has not warmed at all for at least the past 6+ decades.

 

[HikerGuy83]

^^^^^^^^^^


Two absolutely treasonous moron "faux skeptics" accepting all of CO2 FRAUD's bullshit and using big words to blur the issue.

Their theory is translated into "water causes ice" ... yet even a third grader would notice water is too warm to do that....

Oh Crap......

You found it.

And, true to form........

 

[EMH]

true to form

EMH is correct

water does not cause ice. It is too warm to do that... duh.

 

[HikerGuy83]

EMH is correct

Good...glad to know it.

Have a day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, heat will travel from hotter to colder. The ocean contains 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. Air is a poor conductor of heat. Water is an excellent conductor of heat. The ocean is like a gigantic solar panel when it comes to storing energy. The atmosphere is not.

And yet the ocean and atmosphere's increase in heat have tracked the GHG's rise. In fact, this has been the case throughout geological history;

 

[Anomalism]

Orbital forcing is a red herring. Look at D-O Events.

D-O events are abrupt warming episodes that occurred roughly every 1,500 years during glacial periods. The current leading explanation is that they're caused by shifts in the AMOC, exactly the kind of circulation driven abrupt regional change we were discussing.

D-O events occur during glacial periods, not interglacials. They're oscillations within the cold state, not transitions between climate states. The background conditions that allow D-O events to happen were established by orbital forcing over tens of thousands of years.

Orbital forcing sets whether Earth is in a glacial or interglacial state, D-O events and AMOC shifts create abrupt regional temperature swings within those longer term states.

D-O events show that ocean circulation can cause very rapid regional temperature changes, which no one disputes. But they don't explain why those events occurred during glacial periods and largely disappeared during interglacials. The answer to that is the orbital forcing that determines the background climate state.

If orbital forcing were a red herring, we'd need an alternative explanation for why glacial-interglacial cycles follow the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle, why deglaciations align with northern hemisphere summer insolation peaks, and why D-O events themselves are confined to glacial periods.

What mechanism do you think drives the glacial-interglacial cycle if not orbital forcing?

 

[Anomalism]

using big words to blur the issue.

"I don't understand these words so it must be an attempt to confuse me and lie."

 

[ding]

D-O events are abrupt warming episodes that occurred roughly every 1,500 years during glacial periods. The current leading explanation is that they're caused by shifts in the AMOC, exactly the kind of circulation driven abrupt regional change we were discussing.

D-O events occur during glacial periods, not interglacials. They're oscillations within the cold state, not transitions between climate states. The background conditions that allow D-O events to happen were established by orbital forcing over tens of thousands of years.

Orbital forcing sets whether Earth is in a glacial or interglacial state, D-O events and AMOC shifts create abrupt regional temperature swings within those longer term states.

D-O events show that ocean circulation can cause very rapid regional temperature changes, which no one disputes. But they don't explain why those events occurred during glacial periods and largely disappeared during interglacials. The answer to that is the orbital forcing that determines the background climate state.

If orbital forcing were a red herring, we'd need an alternative explanation for why glacial-interglacial cycles follow the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle, why deglaciations align with northern hemisphere summer insolation peaks, and why D-O events themselves are confined to glacial periods.

What mechanism do you think drives the glacial-interglacial cycle if not orbital forcing?

That's not entirely correct. They are 5C to 8C swings up and down over a matter of decades. They occur in the northern hemisphere but their effects can be seen in the southern hemisphere.

Yes it was during the last glacial period but they were warming and cooling events. There were like 25 of them during the last glacial period.

So this is an example of abrupt glaciation and deglaciation that could not have been caused by orbital forcing.

 

[Woodznutz]

With all this knowledge why can't we solve our problems?

 

[Anomalism]

That's not entirely correct. They are 5C to 8C swings up and down over a matter of decades. They occur in the northern hemisphere but their effects can be seen in the southern hemisphere.

Yes it was during the last glacial period but they were warming and cooling events. There were like 25 of them during the last glacial period.

View attachment 1253854

So this is an example of abrupt glaciation and deglaciation that could not have been caused by orbital forcing.

Calling them glaciation and deglaciation misses what they actually are. They're regional temperature oscillations, not ice age transitions. Greenland warms and cools rapidly, ice sheets don't fully collapse and regrow. That's the key distinction.

D-O events don't contradict orbital forcing because they're operating at completely different scales. Orbital forcing explains why Earth was in a glacial state for 100,000 years in the first place. That's the background condition that allowed D-O events to happen. The AMOC shifts that drive D-O events are internal climate system dynamics that occur within that orbital forced state.

D-O events happen during glacials, not interglacials. If AMOC shifts alone could drive glacial-interglacial cycles, we'd see D-O-style oscillations triggering ice ages during warm periods too. We don't. The current interglacial has been relatively stable for 11,000 years despite ongoing ocean circulation variability. Why? Because the orbital configuration doesn't support extensive northern hemisphere ice sheet growth right now.

You still haven't answered the question. If orbital forcing is a red herring, what mechanism explains the 100,000.year glacial-interglacial cycle? What explains why deglaciations consistently align with peaks in northern hemisphere summer insolation? D-O events can't explain that pattern because they're confined to glacial periods and operate on millennial timescales, not a 100,000 year cycle.

Also,.the graph you posted showing D-O events was created by the same climate scientists you're arguing are wrong about everything. Those ice core records, the isotope analysis, the dating methods, all done by researchers who accept that orbital forcing drives glacial cycles and that AGW is real. If you trust their data enough to use it as evidence, why reject their interpretation of what it means?