|
Post by graywolf on Mar 24, 2015 9:33:02 GMT
www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-22/welcome-double-el-ni-o-and-more-extreme-weatherI'm more concerned at the upcoming uptick in mass loss from Greenland adding into the freshening of portion of the AMOC where subduction should be occurring? With the Sea level rises any reduction in flow rates brings to East Coast USA then the next decade could see a lot of folk realise that 'climate change' is both real and impacting them directly.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2015 10:16:47 GMT
www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-22/welcome-double-el-ni-o-and-more-extreme-weatherI'm more concerned at the upcoming uptick in mass loss from Greenland adding into the freshening of portion of the AMOC where subduction should be occurring? With the Sea level rises any reduction in flow rates brings to East Coast USA then the next decade could see a lot of folk realise that 'climate change' is both real and impacting them directly. Anyone who is surprised by sea level rise because of Greenland's melt has had their head stuck where the sun doesn't shine. I have been reading about this since the 1970's when my interest began. It is a paleo fact and to be 100% expected. On this one, man has very limited influence but time's influence is pronounced.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2015 11:01:27 GMT
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstractIn contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2?s?1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17?m, with sea level decreasing 0.03?m over the 20?year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 24, 2015 15:57:15 GMT
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstractIn contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2?s?1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17?m, with sea level decreasing 0.03?m over the 20?year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period. Ahh!!! Competing analyses. This one states no significant slowdown in AMOC (long term 0.13% per year, about 1% per decade). Assuming there is any data reported, I can't see it without paying. The other ... www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/os-10-29-2014.pdf ... as previously posted gives a decline in AMOC speed of 30% since 04, with an increase in flow to the east, offset by a decline in deep water return flow. Feb. AMO appears stuck at just above 0. The AMO surely has to be a result, not a driver... a symptom of things to come. Note: Has the gulf stream diverted even further east at about 40 deg. N? The northern leg is still there but it appears weakened. earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-20.72,31.99,490 I remember someone posting (probably El Nino thread) on trade winds blowing like stink? Does anyone know of a data set on this?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 24, 2015 23:14:22 GMT
www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-22/welcome-double-el-ni-o-and-more-extreme-weatherI'm more concerned at the upcoming uptick in mass loss from Greenland adding into the freshening of portion of the AMOC where subduction should be occurring? With the Sea level rises any reduction in flow rates brings to East Coast USA then the next decade could see a lot of folk realise that 'climate change' is both real and impacting them directly. Upcoming uptick in Greenland's mass loss? DMI link
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2015 14:42:33 GMT
www.eoearth.org/view/article/156548/This article is drawn from Abrupt Climate Change A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Lead Author: Thomas L. Delworth, NOAA; Contributing Authors: Peter U. Clark, Oregon State University; Marika Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research; William E. Johns, University of Miami; Till Kuhlbrodt, University of Reading; Jean Lynch-Stieglitz, Georgia Institute of Technology; Carrie Morrill, University of Colorado/NOAA; Richard Seager, Columbia University; Andrew J. Weaver, University of Victoria; Rong Zhang, NOAA
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Mar 26, 2015 15:32:43 GMT
www.eoearth.org/view/article/156548/This article is drawn from Abrupt Climate Change A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Lead Author: Thomas L. Delworth, NOAA; Contributing Authors: Peter U. Clark, Oregon State University; Marika Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research; William E. Johns, University of Miami; Till Kuhlbrodt, University of Reading; Jean Lynch-Stieglitz, Georgia Institute of Technology; Carrie Morrill, University of Colorado/NOAA; Richard Seager, Columbia University; Andrew J. Weaver, University of Victoria; Rong Zhang, NOAA well if the models say it wont happen .. but I think it may prob within the next 10-15 yrs ..
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 26, 2015 20:03:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 26, 2015 21:45:08 GMT
It seems that they have decided to focus on the AMOC. Look for the platinum edition of the "Day After Tomorrow" to come out soon. No place to hide the data like the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2015 0:28:11 GMT
It seems that they have decided to focus on the AMOC. Look for the platinum edition of the "Day After Tomorrow" to come out soon. No place to hide the data like the ocean. First you have to have actual data. Rosmorph's paper is all based on modeled results. And it uses Mann's proxy work as a basis. So no matter what, the paper is already flawed.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 27, 2015 2:24:25 GMT
It seems that they have decided to focus on the AMOC. Look for the platinum edition of the "Day After Tomorrow" to come out soon. No place to hide the data like the ocean. First you have to have actual data. Rosmorph's paper is all based on modeled results. And it uses Mann's proxy work as a basis. So no matter what, the paper is already flawed. Of course, but that is the problem. Raw data and modeled 'data' have become so interchanged that nobody knows what is what anymore. Referencing the study that found a 0.5 degree difference between SST in the N. Atlantic and the S. Atlantic in 1970 ... the AMO WAS negative at that time. Current AMO deviations since 2000 do not look significantly different from the 30s-60s. The AMOC may well have been delivering less warm water northward in 1970. But to say that it has been weakening since the 30s? Any references to the proof for that?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2015 2:41:38 GMT
SST, at that time, was done via ship bucket method. You threw a bucket over the side, hauled it in and measured the water. Also, ship intake temp was used, even tho that really isn't a surface temperature.
Actual data, prior to satellite data, is fraught with error to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 27, 2015 2:51:47 GMT
Referencing the study that found a 0.5 degree difference between SST in the N. Atlantic and the S. Atlantic in 1970 ... the AMO WAS negative at that time. Current AMO deviations since 2000 do not look significantly different from the 30s-60s. The AMOC may well have been delivering less warm water northward in 1970. But to say that it has been weakening since the 30s? Any references to the proof for that? It seems to be a primary focus of their paper. Found the paper ... Phil Jones' name attached. www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceKennedyJones_Nature2010.pdfThe 1970 drop coincides with the sharp final drop (1970-74) of the AMO by a total of -0.3, after which it increases sharply. It also coincides with the peak of solar cycle 20, whose 'accumulated sunspot anomaly 74 months after cycle start' (from recent paper reference) was -66. In other words a normal but quiet interlude between the highs of solar cycle 19 (3519 accum.) and solar cycle 21 (2108 accum.). This may make no difference, but it is curious. A very large 'pause' in the center of the solar maximum period. The very sharp SST drop in 1945, which the authors state "is linked to biases in the sea surface temperature (SST) data" occurs at the very top of the positive AMO cycle. Coincidence? There appears to be another sharp SST step change about 1913 which temporally coincides with the bottom of the previous AMO negative cycle. Another coincidence? ? The following article explains how they explain the 1945 drop and how the WILL adjust for it. atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/Thompson_etal_Nature2008.pdf
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 28, 2015 3:42:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 31, 2015 16:01:34 GMT
Can anyone reference a paper(s) or site that quantifies (attempts to) the magnitude of heat transported by the oceans versus that transported by the atmosphere? I seem to remember something somewhere that referenced a ratio of 100s to 1.
|
|