|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 17, 2009 12:46:45 GMT
It would appear that many of our threads drift into discussing ocean dynamics and Ocean Heat Content (OHC). This is understandable as the atmosphere and the climate is driven by the OHC. Winds created from large scale convection drive sea levels and affect Sea Surface Temperatures leading to the El Nino Southern Oscillation which has huge affects on world wide weather. Then there are the longer period oscillations in the Pacific - Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) both of which appear to be going negative.
The OHC as shown by ARGO floats appears to be _dropping_ or at least stable, while it should be rising at a steady rate if the 'radiative forcing' hypotheses were true. OHC is a far more reliable metric for any changes in planetary heat content than air temperatures. It is heat budget that is the nub of the AGW issue.
The distribution of OHC and the convective patterns in the water together with differential rotation of the oceans, angular momentum of the ocean water and moon driven tides lead to the currents swirling around the continents carrying heat or lack of heat to the coasts of the continents.
This I feel merits a thread.
One of the recent threads 'Early Signs of Autumn' has raised the Gulf stream so I thought I would start this thread as it seems an underlying theme in much of our discussions. I will put my reply to that post below.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 17, 2009 12:51:58 GMT
From Early Signs of Autumn - cross posted hereBut this summer, for reasons unknown, "the Gulf Stream slowed down," Edwing said, sending water toward the coasts—and sea levels shooting upward.
Adding to the sustained surge, autumn winds from the northeastern Atlantic arrived a few months early, pushing even more water coastward.
But the underlying puzzle remains.
"Why did the Gulf Stream slow down? Why did the fall wind pattern appear earlier?" NOAA's Edwing said. "We don't have those answers."news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090910-sea-levels-rise.html That could be really bad news for NW Europe and the UK. The weather patterns were definitely different this year but that would not explain the Gulf Stream slow down . Of course in line with CO 2 driving everything the AGW proponents are _convinced_ that any slowdown is 'Global Warming' " The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.
The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.
The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol." www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398-failing-ocean-current-raises-fears-of-mini-ice-age.htmlBut there is an alternate view from a more trusted source: "Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Academy of Sciences concur. Computer models are being used to predict climate change under different scenarios of greenhouse forcing and the Kyoto Protocol advocates active measures to reduce CO² emissions which contribute to warming.
Thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.
Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.
The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. "www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046This is not good news.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 17, 2009 13:03:02 GMT
From Early Signs of Autumn - cross posted hereBut this summer, for reasons unknown, "the Gulf Stream slowed down," Edwing said, sending water toward the coasts—and sea levels shooting upward.
Adding to the sustained surge, autumn winds from the northeastern Atlantic arrived a few months early, pushing even more water coastward.
But the underlying puzzle remains.
"Why did the Gulf Stream slow down? Why did the fall wind pattern appear earlier?" NOAA's Edwing said. "We don't have those answers."news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090910-sea-levels-rise.html That could be really bad news for NW Europe and the UK. The weather patterns were definitely different this year but that would not explain the Gulf Stream slow down . Of course in line with CO 2 driving everything the AGW proponents are _convinced_ that any slowdown is 'Global Warming' " The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.
The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.
The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol." www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398-failing-ocean-current-raises-fears-of-mini-ice-age.htmlBut there is an alternate view from a more trusted source: "Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US National Academy of Sciences concur. Computer models are being used to predict climate change under different scenarios of greenhouse forcing and the Kyoto Protocol advocates active measures to reduce CO² emissions which contribute to warming.
Thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.
Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.
The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. "www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046This is not good news. The problem is that AGW promotion has so distorted and misled the discussion that it is difficult to give any credulity to anything published about impending doom regarding climate. The first question that pops to mind is this: Since B. Franklin first started paying close attention to the Gulf Stream, what is its record of natural variability? |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 17, 2009 13:08:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 17, 2009 13:27:19 GMT
A bit OT but still relevant to the discussion, it appears NOAA may be cooking the books by removing satellite data in November 2008 and excluding ARGO in their 2009 reporting of SST, ripe for political propaganda.
Some will argue ARGO only surfaces every 10 days, but it still could be used to cross check the buoy system which has far less coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 20:38:05 GMT
But there is an alternate view from a more trusted source: ... This is not good news. Indeed not but this is exactly the risk we run by sharply increasing greenhouse gases. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 22:40:29 GMT
socold.
Indeed not but this is exactly the risk we run by sharply increasing greenhouse gases.
It;s going to send us into an ice age! Really?
It's also going to send us past the tipping point of uncontrollable warming!
Just take the long term average of these two pieces of alarmist nonsense and the result is that we stay pretty much as we are. If you factor in some real science then we are getting colder FOR REAL!
|
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 17, 2009 22:46:20 GMT
[/quote]
Indeed not but this is exactly the risk we run by sharply increasing greenhouse gases.[/quote]
The least of our worries is how much CO2 is being produced through human activity. Government should be spending the billions it is wasting on repetitive AGW studies on developing contingency plans for whichever climate changes may come our way (cold or hot). In fact, more effort should be focused on how humankind can deal with potential cold since it would offer far greater suffering than increased heat. This would be a greater use of resources than trying to figure out how to impact natural phenomena over which we can exercise no influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:54:24 GMT
socold. Indeed not but this is exactly the risk we run by sharply increasing greenhouse gases. It;s going to send us into an ice age! Really? It's also going to send us past the tipping point of uncontrollable warming! Just take the long term average of these two pieces of alarmist nonsense and the result is that we stay pretty much as we are. If you factor in some real science then we are getting colder FOR REAL! Alarmist nonsense? nautonnier described it as "a view from a more trusted source" This kind of thing is possible, in fact the article points out abrupt cooling happening before caused by a period of warming. There is no sign of cooling. Years into a deep solar minimum and temperatures are at some of the highest levels of the past few decades. You can't take the average of two competing risks to claim risk does not exist. For example two competing risks are drought and flood. Average the two and humanity will not face either? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:55:57 GMT
The least of our worries is how much CO2 is being produced through human activity. Government should be spending the billions it is wasting on repetitive AGW studies on developing contingency plans for whichever climate changes may come our way (cold or hot). In fact, more effort should be focused on how humankind can deal with potential cold since it would offer far greater suffering than increased heat. This would be a greater use of resources than trying to figure out how to impact natural phenomena over which we can exercise no influence. That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 23:09:14 GMT
socold.
This kind of thing is possible, in fact the article points out abrupt cooling happening before caused by a period of warming. There is no sign of cooling. Years into a deep solar minimum and temperatures are at some of the highest levels of the past few decades.
Yes socold, anything is possible, but is it likely??? Has it anything at all to do with CO2. NO!
In the past long before AGW was invented, we plunged into Ice ages in a few decades and probably will again and again without mans help.
Of course there are signs of cooling (argo) after just a couple of years of missed solar ramp up. You just choose to ignore them. Don't confuse manually adjusted silly data with the real world. Hottest summer on record PLEASE!!!! Mind you, even that is true for a 1 year old.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 17, 2009 23:19:47 GMT
A bit OT but still relevant to the discussion, it appears NOAA may be cooking the books by removing satellite data in November 2008 and excluding ARGO in their 2009 reporting of SST, ripe for political propaganda. Some will argue ARGO only surfaces every 10 days, but it still could be used to cross check the buoy system which has far less coverage. So, they didn't use satellite or ARGO data--was it just buoys? |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 18, 2009 1:14:46 GMT
The least of our worries is how much CO2 is being produced through human activity. Government should be spending the billions it is wasting on repetitive AGW studies on developing contingency plans for whichever climate changes may come our way (cold or hot). In fact, more effort should be focused on how humankind can deal with potential cold since it would offer far greater suffering than increased heat. This would be a greater use of resources than trying to figure out how to impact natural phenomena over which we can exercise no influence. That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Overfishing is a micro example in comparison to climate whichn is affected by myriad factors - some that are not yet even known. The ozone scare was a farce and has been debunked by the theory itself which predicted that it would take at least 50 years for the hole to be repaired due to the time lapse of HFC migration to the affected area (it has since shrunk and expanded and shrunk again). Your CO2 arguments don't deserve a response since it is documented that levels have been several times higher in both warm and cold eras of the earth's history (plus diminishing GH affect levels and the fact that CO2 trails temps, etc. etc. etc.). Geez! |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 18, 2009 2:11:26 GMT
The least of our worries is how much CO2 is being produced through human activity. Government should be spending the billions it is wasting on repetitive AGW studies on developing contingency plans for whichever climate changes may come our way (cold or hot). In fact, more effort should be focused on how humankind can deal with potential cold since it would offer far greater suffering than increased heat. This would be a greater use of resources than trying to figure out how to impact natural phenomena over which we can exercise no influence. That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Socold: You are a smart feller. For you to say that methane is rising in the atmosphere is mmmmmm..........welllllllll......totally wrong. methane has been falling and of course, no one knows why. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 18, 2009 2:11:53 GMT
The ozone hole has indeed come and gone several times since implementation of the Montreal Accord. Each recovery is recorded with glee and proof of human power to control the environment. Heads I win, tails we don't discuss.
More interesting is the last decades fall in atmospheric Methane levels. I for one am highly interested in this as it is potentially a proxy to global temperature.
We were told that Methane would ooze out everywhere by the AGW's.
|
|
