Record Cold In Australia

Since SunBurnedTommy posted record cold 2022 of course.


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/e...-heat-record-in-jeopardy-as-temperatures-soar
The Weather Network
Australia’s all-time heat record in jeopardy as temperatures soar
Not only does a 50.7°C reading stand as Australia's hottest-ever temperature, but it's also the highest confirmed reading ever observed in the...
Jan 21, 2024



Reuters
Australia swelters in spring heat wave, temperatures set to break records
A spring heat wave across large parts of Australia's southeast, including Sydney, will intensify on Monday, the weather bureau said,...
.
Sep 20, 2023


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/
Washington Post
The world is already experiencing record heat — in January
Temperature records are falling on nearly every continent, and the warmth could put 2024 on pace to challenge 2023′s exceptional global...
Jan 25, 2024


Forbes
Japan And Australia Notch Hottest Seasons On Record As 2023 Heat Records Continue
Topline. Japan recorded its hottest summer on record in 2023, the agency's meteorological agency said Friday, while Australia notched its...
.
Sep 1, 2023


World Meteorological Organization WMO
February ends with extreme and unusual heat
Parts of North and South America, northwest and southeast Africa, southeast and far eastern Asia, western Australia and Europe all saw...
Mar 1, 2024
Heat Is Killing Thousands, and Big Events Have Not Adjusted

Nature
Record-breaking heat set to hit Southern Hemisphere as summer begins
The Northern Hemisphere experienced a sweltering summer due to climate and meteorological patterns. Scientists say the south will not...
Nov 19, 2023


The Guardian
Hobart endures hottest night in 112 years as severe heatwave hits south-eastern Australia
Extreme heat forecast to continue across Victoria, Tasmania, SA and NSW for several days, as record temperatures cause cancellation of long...
Mar 9, 2024


AccuWeather
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record. Although the worst of the heat has ended, persistent dry weather and...
.
Sep 20, 2023

NASA Earth Observatory (.gov)
Heat Blankets Australia, Fuels Bushfires
An early summer heatwave contributed to the country's already active fire season.
Dec 20, 2023



`
 
Since SunBurnedTommy posted record cold 2022 of course.


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/e...-heat-record-in-jeopardy-as-temperatures-soar
The Weather Network
Australia’s all-time heat record in jeopardy as temperatures soar
Not only does a 50.7°C reading stand as Australia's hottest-ever temperature, but it's also the highest confirmed reading ever observed in the...
Jan 21, 2024



Reuters
Australia swelters in spring heat wave, temperatures set to break records
A spring heat wave across large parts of Australia's southeast, including Sydney, will intensify on Monday, the weather bureau said,...
.
Sep 20, 2023


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/
Washington Post
The world is already experiencing record heat — in January
Temperature records are falling on nearly every continent, and the warmth could put 2024 on pace to challenge 2023′s exceptional global...
Jan 25, 2024


Forbes
Japan And Australia Notch Hottest Seasons On Record As 2023 Heat Records Continue
Topline. Japan recorded its hottest summer on record in 2023, the agency's meteorological agency said Friday, while Australia notched its...
.
Sep 1, 2023


World Meteorological Organization WMO
February ends with extreme and unusual heat
Parts of North and South America, northwest and southeast Africa, southeast and far eastern Asia, western Australia and Europe all saw...
Mar 1, 2024
Heat Is Killing Thousands, and Big Events Have Not Adjusted

Nature
Record-breaking heat set to hit Southern Hemisphere as summer begins
The Northern Hemisphere experienced a sweltering summer due to climate and meteorological patterns. Scientists say the south will not...
Nov 19, 2023


The Guardian
Hobart endures hottest night in 112 years as severe heatwave hits south-eastern Australia
Extreme heat forecast to continue across Victoria, Tasmania, SA and NSW for several days, as record temperatures cause cancellation of long...
Mar 9, 2024


AccuWeather
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record. Although the worst of the heat has ended, persistent dry weather and...
.
Sep 20, 2023

NASA Earth Observatory (.gov)
Heat Blankets Australia, Fuels Bushfires
An early summer heatwave contributed to the country's already active fire season.
Dec 20, 2023



`
So you're saying it's typical interglacial weather. Brilliant.
 
These are some of my favorite threads....people holding up huge signs saying "look what a fucking idiot I am, I think that global warming means it can never get cold again"
I see you failed to note the so-called journalists called it an "arctic blast" in Australia, despite it being in the southern hemisphere. Who is the idiot?
 
Sorry, I do have a job and a life outside of this forum.

But, are you really this stupid? You think that the change in Classification just happens overnight with no changes leading up to it? Do you think the Sahara went from green grassland to desert overnight? That on Tuesday it was green and lush and on Thursday it was a desert?
This so-called "climate change" has actually led to a greening in the Sahel region south of the Sahara. In the time of "global warming", how does that make sense? Nobody ever mentions global cooling.
 
Since SunBurnedTommy posted record cold 2022 of course.


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/e...-heat-record-in-jeopardy-as-temperatures-soar
The Weather Network
Australia’s all-time heat record in jeopardy as temperatures soar
Not only does a 50.7°C reading stand as Australia's hottest-ever temperature, but it's also the highest confirmed reading ever observed in the...
Jan 21, 2024



Reuters
Australia swelters in spring heat wave, temperatures set to break records
A spring heat wave across large parts of Australia's southeast, including Sydney, will intensify on Monday, the weather bureau said,...
.
Sep 20, 2023


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/
Washington Post
The world is already experiencing record heat — in January
Temperature records are falling on nearly every continent, and the warmth could put 2024 on pace to challenge 2023′s exceptional global...
Jan 25, 2024


Forbes
Japan And Australia Notch Hottest Seasons On Record As 2023 Heat Records Continue
Topline. Japan recorded its hottest summer on record in 2023, the agency's meteorological agency said Friday, while Australia notched its...
.
Sep 1, 2023


World Meteorological Organization WMO
February ends with extreme and unusual heat
Parts of North and South America, northwest and southeast Africa, southeast and far eastern Asia, western Australia and Europe all saw...
Mar 1, 2024
Heat Is Killing Thousands, and Big Events Have Not Adjusted

Nature
Record-breaking heat set to hit Southern Hemisphere as summer begins
The Northern Hemisphere experienced a sweltering summer due to climate and meteorological patterns. Scientists say the south will not...
Nov 19, 2023


The Guardian
Hobart endures hottest night in 112 years as severe heatwave hits south-eastern Australia
Extreme heat forecast to continue across Victoria, Tasmania, SA and NSW for several days, as record temperatures cause cancellation of long...
Mar 9, 2024


AccuWeather
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record
Australia wildfires rage as Sydney breaks all-time September heat record. Although the worst of the heat has ended, persistent dry weather and...
.
Sep 20, 2023

NASA Earth Observatory (.gov)
Heat Blankets Australia, Fuels Bushfires
An early summer heatwave contributed to the country's already active fire season.
Dec 20, 2023



`
Have you started building an Ark for all the flooding you think is coming?
 
Exactly. It's not discernible. Hence it's not a catastrophe.
Can you discern a few ppb of dioxin in your last meal?
Can you discern 20 mg of plutonium dust getting into your lungs over a few days?
Can you discern the Ebola virus? HIV? The rabies virus?
Can you discern botulinum toxin, clostridium tetani? Listeria? Salmonella?
Can you discern a terrorist in Washington DC with an atomic bomb?
Can you discern a mountain-sized asteroid screaming in for a direct hit
You think 1.5C over 174 years is significant. I say it's normal.
Based on what? Has it been the norm during human history? Was it a typical warming rate in any of the last 30 interglacial rises? Do you even understand what the word "normal" means?
You say 1.5C is due entirely to 120 ppm of incremental CO2.
No, actually, I have NEVER said that. Nor has mainstream science. What has ALWAYS been said is that greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions is the primary or largest cause of the observed warming. You should try to pay attention to how many times you try to make a discussion of complex issues black and white. Surely you remember this graph. Have you never actually read it?

1722172317372.jpeg

I say that only 0.22C to 0.5C is due to an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 with the rest being do to natural warming from ocean currents.
INCREMENTAL: increasing or adding on, especially in a regular series
CO2 is not being added to the atmosphere in incremental fashion. Every time you use the term as you do here, you are only pointing out your ignorance and your fondness for buzzwords, a fairly reliable indicator of pseudo-science.

In re "only 0.22C to 0.5C" let's see your work or even the work of someone qualified to actually do it. And while you're fetching that, how about explaining what you actually mean with those numbers. ECS? TCR? Do you believe that is all the warming that pushing CO2 from 280ppm to 400 ppm will ever accomplish? Do you believe that is all the warming that human GHG emisisons have produced to this point in time? Do you believe that is the warming that such an increase will produce over some period and under some conditions that you simply haven't yet delineated?

Finally, unless you wish to join your fellow denier intelligentsia in claiming all the temperature data have been fabricated, you have to admit that something changed between 1850 and the present regarding the temperature of the Earth. You claim it was due to "natural warming from ocean currents". Please explain how those ocean currents CHANGED over the time span to have caused that change in temperature and temperature trend. The same sun was shining on the world's oceans between 1675 and 1850. If you cannot identify a CHANGE in one to have created the CHANGE we've seen in the other, your idea simply fails.
 
Last edited:
Can you discern a few ppb of dioxin in your last meal?
Can you discern 20 mg of plutonium dust getting into your lungs over a few days?
Can you discern the Ebola virus? HIV? The rabies virus?
Can you discern botulinum toxin, clostridium tetani? Listeria? Salmonella?
Can you discern a terrorist in Washington DC with an atomic bomb?
Can you discern a mountain-sized asteroid screaming in for a direct hit

Based on what? Has it been the norm during human history? Was it a typical warming rate in any of the last 30 interglacial rises? Do you even understand what the word "normal" means?

No, actually, I have NEVER said that. Nor has mainstream science. What has ALWAYS been said is that greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions is the primary or largest cause of the observed warming. You should try to pay attention to how many times you try to make a discussion of complex issues black and white. Surely you remember this graph. Have you never actually read it?

View attachment 985609

INCREMENTAL: increasing or adding on, especially in a regular series
CO2 is not being added to the atmosphere in incremental fashion. Every time you use the term as you do here, you are only pointing out your ignorance and your fondness for buzzwords, a fairly reliable indicator of pseudo-science.

In re "only 0.22C to 0.5C" let's see your work or even the work of someone qualified to actually do it. And while you're fetching that, how about explaining what you actually mean with those numbers. ECS? TCR? Do you believe that is all the warming that pushing CO2 from 280ppm to 400 ppm will ever accomplish? Do you believe that is all the warming that human GHG emisisons have produced to this point in time? Do you believe that is the warming that such an increase will produce over some period and under some conditions that you simply haven't yet delineated?

Finally, unless you wish to join your fellow denier intelligentsia in claiming all the temperature data have been fabricated, you have to admit that something changed between 1850 and the present regarding the temperature of the Earth. You claim it was due to "natural warming from ocean currents". Please explain how those ocean currents CHANGED over the time span to have caused that change in temperature and temperature trend. The same sun was shining on the world's oceans between 1675 and 1850. If you cannot identify a CHANGE in one to have created the CHANGE we've seen in the other, your idea simply fails.
No one is worried about AGW because the effects are not noticeable because the current warming trend is natural. Within 1 year of the AMOC shutting down, everyone will notice and AGW will be officially dead as all the rats try to leave the sinking ship. They will be falling all over themselves saying they knew it was wrong but were afraid to speak up. It's going to be glorious.
 
No one is worried about AGW
Most of the people on this planet are worred about AGW.
because the effects are not noticeable because the current warming trend is natural.
The warming trend is not "natural" because the ONLY cause that can be identified for the bulk of the warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human (ie, synthetic) GHG emissions. You saying things does not make them so. And so far, that is ALL you have done in ANY of your many posts on this topic.
Within 1 year of the AMOC shutting down, everyone will notice and AGW will be officially dead as all the rats try to leave the sinking ship. They will be falling all over themselves saying they knew it was wrong but were afraid to speak up. It's going to be glorious.
Quite the Christian viewpoint you've got there. Now, aside from the change in albedo, please explain how the AMOC shutting down would cause the PLANET to cool. Because I'm thinking that every joule that doesn't make it to the Arctic Ocean will be piling up at the equator. Where do you think that energy is going to go. And then there's the point that that big circulatory current bringing equatorial waters to the poles is driven by Coriolis, which will not have weakened in the slightest.
 
Most of the people on this planet are worred about AGW.

The warming trend is not "natural" because the ONLY cause that can be identified for the bulk of the warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human (ie, synthetic) GHG emissions. You saying things does not make them so. And so far, that is ALL you have done in ANY of your many posts on this topic.

Quite the Christian viewpoint you've got there. Now, aside from the change in albedo, please explain how the AMOC shutting down would cause the PLANET to cool. Because I'm thinking that every joule that doesn't make it to the Arctic Ocean will be piling up at the equator. Where do you think that energy is going to go. And then there's the point that that big circulatory current bringing equatorial waters to the poles is driven by Coriolis, which will not have weakened in the slightest.
You act like there have never been warming trends until man. That just isn't the case. The same thing (i.e. the ocean's distribution of heat) that caused those warming trends before man is still doing it today.
 
You act like there have never been warming trends until man.
What difference do you think that makes?
That just isn't the case.
I never said it was.
The same thing (i.e. the ocean's distribution of heat) that caused those warming trends before man is still doing it today.
Direct satellite measurement of outgoing IR and ground observation of IR backscatter unequivocally demonstrate and quantify the greenhouse effect. Moving heat energy around the world's oceans, PARTICULARLY when there have been NO CHANGES to the pattern of its movement for tens of thousands of years, CAN NOT be the cause the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.
 
What difference do you think that makes?

I never said it was.

Direct satellite measurement of outgoing IR and ground observation of IR backscatter unequivocally demonstrate and quantify the greenhouse effect. Moving heat energy around the world's oceans, PARTICULARLY when there have been NO CHANGES to the pattern of its movement for tens of thousands of years, CAN NOT be the cause the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.
Never said there isn't a GHG effect. I've said the GHG effect of CO2 is overstated.

The difference is that it shows that natural causes (i.e. how the ocean distributes heat and how that distribution affects the climate) are responsible for the recent warming trend more so than an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

You know full well that natural causes are 100% responsible for all warming and cooling trends prior to the industrial revolution up to and including the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. So your arguing natural causes can't be responsible for the recent warming trend is disingenuous.
 
Never said there isn't a GHG effect. I've said the GHG effect of CO2 is overstated.
Yes you have, but you've never showed WHY you think that, either with your own work or that of others.
The difference is that it shows that natural causes (i.e. how the ocean distributes heat and how that distribution affects the climate) are responsible for the recent warming trend more so than an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
It does no such thing.
You know full well that natural causes are 100% responsible for all warming and cooling trends prior to the industrial revolution up to and including the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.
I'm afraid I know no such thing. The magnitude was smaller, but pre-industrial humans produced effects on regional and global climate. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ivities which,regional or even global climate.
So your arguing natural causes can't be responsible for the recent warming trend is disingenuous.
I never said they couldn't. I said they aren't.
 
Yes you have, but you've never showed WHY you think that, either with your own work or that of others.

It does no such thing.

I'm afraid I know no such thing. The magnitude was smaller, but pre-industrial humans produced effects on regional and global climate. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0045653594901694#:~:text=Pre-industrial human activities which,regional or even global climate.

I never said they couldn't. I said they aren't.
It would be awesome if you could articulate your beliefs in a coherent paragraph instead of your cultural marxist critical theory approach of parsing posts to criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever examining what you believe

I have explained in great detail, multiple times why I believe they are overstating the GHG effect of CO2:
  1. they don't limit the GHG effect to the theoretical value from radiative forcing
  2. they add unrealistic feedbacks that amplify the theoretical surface temperature by 350 to 450%
  3. the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping it's theoretical surface temperature because convective currents whisk the heat to the upper atmosphere
  4. the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm and greater
  5. the theoretical surface temperature from CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2
  6. their unrealistic feedbacks violate the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature

Your ignoring the vast overwhelming of warming and cooling trends within glacial and interglacial periods and assuming all warming is from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2 which violates the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature is fraudulent. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. It cooled when atmospheric CO2 was 1000 ppm. Th last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2. You are fraudulent. You are dishonest.
 
It would be awesome if you could articulate your beliefs in a coherent paragraph instead of your cultural marxist critical theory approach of parsing posts to criticize what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever examining what you believe

I have explained in great detail, multiple times why I believe they are overstating the GHG effect of CO2:
  1. they don't limit the GHG effect to the theoretical value from radiative forcing
  2. they add unrealistic feedbacks that amplify the theoretical surface temperature by 350 to 450%
  3. the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping it's theoretical surface temperature because convective currents whisk the heat to the upper atmosphere
  4. the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm and greater
  5. the theoretical surface temperature from CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2
  6. their unrealistic feedbacks violate the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature

Your ignoring the vast overwhelming of warming and cooling trends within glacial and interglacial periods and assuming all warming is from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2 which violates the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature is fraudulent. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. It cooled when atmospheric CO2 was 1000 ppm. Th last interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2. You are fraudulent. You are dishonest.
MARXIST PARSING?!?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAaaaa
 
MARXIST PARSING?!?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAaaaa
It's your MO. You don't know how to describe your beliefs because your beliefs are unsupported. So instead you criticize what you don't believe by making fringe arguments so you don't have to examine your beliefs. Total Marxist. You are dishonest and fraudulent.
 
It's your MO. You don't know how to describe your beliefs because your beliefs are unsupported. So instead you criticize what you don't believe by making fringe arguments so you don't have to examine your beliefs. Total Marxist. You are dishonest and fraudulent.
I think you know I'm exceedingly not-fine with liars and you are really pushing the envelope... apparently intentionally.

I didn't invent that mode of replying. If you don't like it, don't reply. We're certainly not accomplishing anything here.
 
I think you know I'm exceedingly not-fine with liars and you are really pushing the envelope... apparently intentionally.

I didn't invent that mode of replying. If you don't like it, don't reply. We're certainly not accomplishing anything here.
You're playing dumb about thermohaline circulation says you are fine with it.
 
You're playing dumb about thermohaline circulation says you are fine with it.
I was posting here about the impact of meltwater on the AMOC before you arrived on this forum. Do a search and see. And this:

It's your MO. You don't know how to describe your beliefs because your beliefs are unsupported. So instead you criticize what you don't believe by making fringe arguments so you don't have to examine your beliefs. Total Marxist. You are dishonest and fraudulent.
Is ignorance verging on mental illness. Calling me Marxist based on the format of my responses here is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen. It's right up there with EMH suggesting that Glacier Bay was melted by a secret microwave weapon.

I know fully well how to describe my beliefs. That I choose not to respond to your puerile, pointless demands is my response to your persistent habit of ignoring hard evidence that refutes your contentions..
 
I was posting here about the impact of meltwater on the AMOC before you arrived on this forum. Do a search and see. And this:


Is ignorance verging on mental illness. Calling me Marxist based on the format of my responses here is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen. It's right up there with EMH suggesting that Glacier Bay was melted by a secret microwave weapon.

I know fully well how to describe my beliefs. That I choose not to respond to your puerile, pointless demands is my response to your persistent habit of ignoring hard evidence that refutes your contentions..
That's nice.

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).

1721703821840.png





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).
1721704427004.png





Deep Atlantic Circulation During the Last Glacial Maximum and Deglaciation

 
That's nice.
I have highlighted sections of your text in bold red and added several [comments]
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
Please cease and desist with this meaningless list of factoids.
The following are excerpts from papers explaining the science behind the climate changes of the past 3 million years.
No they do not. They discuss ocean circulation patterns CHANGED BY alterations in the surface climate. In a few instances they do discuss climates changed by ocean changes, but they are regional or limited in duration - they are NOT the glacial-interglacial cycle. You have yet to provide a single link supporting that specific claim nor the even more absurd claim that changes in ocean circulation are responsible for the AGW of the past 150 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.
This does nothing to support your contention
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).
This refutes your contention that atmosphere does not affect ocean. And it does nothing to support your other contentions
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).
This does nothing to support your contentions.

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.
Greenland, not the planet. And one millennia is not a glacial-interglacial cycle. This does nothing to support your contention.
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.[Making it more than a little difficult for changes in thermohaline circulation to be responsible for the warming observed over the last 150 years]

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.
[That looks like the atmosphere controlling the ocean's properties to me]
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,[That looks like the atmosphere controlling the ocean's properties to me] 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 [A rapid melting accomplished by increased air temperatures], 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 [again, an atmospheric effect] 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). [D-O Events, not the glacial-interglacial cycle]
This does nothing to support your contentions.

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).
This does nothing to support your contentions
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom