Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 10:43 PM GMT on April 28, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

r






Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice

Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 232 - 182

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting TomTaylor:
The main point of that post was that all those ocean cycles affect global temperatures only because we measure surface temperatures. However, the total heat content of the ocean and atmosphere is not affected by these cycles at all.


The total ocean heat content would be the same, however, the total land based heat content would increase, which in turn would rapidly warm the Arctic, due to the warmer than normal Ocean Currents, and in turn would melt the Arctic, and the Arctic would warm faster than everywhere else, due to the patches of ocean that would appear, due to melted ice, warming the Arctic, and adding Heat to the Earth's Global Heat Budget. So effectively, the oceans indirectly add more heat, due to the Arctic Albedo, or "reflectance."

It is also important to note that there has been no increase in OHC over the past several years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=88520025

QUOTE

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

/QUOTE

Quoting TomTaylor:

Co2 on the other hand does affect the total heat content of the earth.


I agree, but disagree. I agree that if there were NO possible Climate Feedbacks, yes, Man has the potential to warm Earth with doubling co2 by 1 Degree F. However, this is not nearly the case, and there are known documented Climate Feedbacks with doubling of co2. One of those is increased evaporation. The evaporated water condenses to form clouds.



When the total amount of cloud cover goes up, the temperature comes down. This is one of the most prominent negative feedbacks co2 has to deal with if it wants to warm the Earth 1 Degree F when there are doubled amounts of co2.

And as seen here,


http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

QUOTE

the variability of the air temperature at these
stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2
concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system's negative
feedback.

/QUOTE

The clouds' negative feedback are enough to cancel co2 warming all together. co2 induced warming in the past had negative feedbacks to deal with, it has negative feedbacks to deal with now. That is why in the paleoclimatological data, the co2 is more than ten times as high as current co2 concentrations, but we were in the midst of an Ice Age.




Quoting TomTaylor:

That is precisely what ghgs do. They alter the total heat of the planet by trapping extra heat which would otherwise escape.


You are correct- but you have stated what they do when there are no climate feedbacks.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting RMuller:


Just can't believe your idol is biased, huh? It's not a record. Just more hype. There has been no continuous increase in Gulf SSTs. It's just cyclical like everything else.


Isn't the GOM part of the Atlantic ocean and is included in world ocean temperatures? So it stands to reason why the temps are rising in the GOM also.What does "What's Up With That" have to say about this. Does it know more than NOAA on this?

Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.



Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.


BTW I bet they have to rescale this chart also upwards again this year.





Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
I just don't understand how some people don't think the Earth goes through cycles and they think the temperature should stay at one average temperature year round.

Until they realize that the Earth goes through cycles I'm not sure it is even worth discussing it with them.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting RMuller:


The title of his blog was that the temps were records or near records. Not even close.


.21c is near a record. What's your point?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RMuller:
Looks as if even the "Master" doesn't hesitate to fudge the numbers.

Jeff Masters's claim that Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are "among the highest on record", which was repeated by Joe Romm, is contrived. It is based on a comparison of a monthly long-term SST dataset to a daily value assumed from the contour levels on a map. The assumed value of 1.0 deg C is 0.21 deg C higher than the three-week month-to-date SST anomalies for the Gulf of Mexico. Short-term satellite-based data show that the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies are a noisy dataset, with the current anomalies well within the normal range of variability. Long-term SST anomaly data show that the trend of the Gulf of Mexico SST anomalies is flat or negative since 1930. In other words, over that past 80 years, there is no global warming signal in the Gulf of Mexico SST data.

Link


One year, warm or cold does not make for a trend in the GOMEX SST anomalies, I agree. Last year the GOMEX was very cold due to troughing in the E made by El Nino, -AO, -NAO, and this year, the GOMEX has above normal SSTs due to a SE Ridge that is common during a La Nina.

Nothing unusual, yet the CAGW Proponents will try and harp that this has "never been seen before."

Imagine if the Great Blizzard of 1888 happened this year... LOL the CAGW Proponents would be all over that.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting RMuller:
My point is that they are nowhere near what he is saying. Read the article.


.21c is not that far off. what's your point?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting RMuller:
Looks as if even the "Master" doesn't hesitate to fudge the numbers.

Link


.21c is not fudging.Even if they are .21c lower than what Jeff claims they are they are still to high. See what the tornadoes did in Alabama because of those higher than normal temps.? Imagine how much worse those tornadoes could have been if the temperature was .21 c greater? What is your point? Temps are still to high.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Neapolitan:
I've seen the term "Climategate" thrown around here a lot, as though constant repetition of the word will somehow lend it credibility or substance. For any people types still using that word, I'd like them to watch this video. It's long at >17 minutes, but it covers a lot of territory, so they may want to have a look at it anyway. There's little in here climate scientists don't or didn't already know, but the average person might find it interesting.



So where is the video?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
I've seen the term "Climategate" thrown around here a lot, as though constant repetition of the word will somehow lend it credibility or substance. For any people types still using that word, I'd like them to watch this video. It's long at >17 minutes, but it covers a lot of territory, so they may want to have a look at it anyway. There's little in here climate scientists don't or didn't already know, but the average person might find it interesting.

Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
Quoting TomTaylor:
I see you agree with most my post, but I think you may have missed the main point of my post.

The main point of that post was that all those ocean cycles affect global temperatures only because we measure surface temperatures. However, the total heat content of the ocean and atmosphere is not affected by these cycles at all. This is because these cycles have no effect on the total heat content and only have an effect on the distribution of this heat.

Co2 on the other hand does affect the total heat content of the earth. Therefore, our global temperature graph trends can be blamed on oscillations, however true global warming (by measurement of total heat in the oceans and atmosphere, NOT just the surface) can NOT be blamed on oscillations.

That is precisely what ghgs do. They alter the total heat of the planet by trapping extra heat which would otherwise escape. Oscillations do nothing to the total heat of the system (except maybe altering cloud cover as sirmaelstrom mentioned, but the relationship there is not at all understood).


Gulfstream Kinetic Energy can snub out or smooth out those oscillations like an accumulator does all while lowering the total net global heat content and at the same time produce an enormous amount of electrical power. What geo-engineering project can do better than that right now?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


I agree completely. The oceans storing heat and retaining that stored heat is also why the SSTs do not vary as much as the land based temperatures.





Right. The PDO and AMO do not have as many complicated climatic feedbacks as co2 induced warming.


Right, but where the redistributed heat is, is quite significant. The Equator sees the same average temperature, with little to no deviation from normal. When the oceanic oscillations focus the redistributed heat near the equator, to form more powerful El Ninos, it has the same impact, as if the Arctic were to have an entire anomaly of say, 20 Degrees C.

More El Ninos=More warming.

co2 induced warming is not quite as simple. You have complicated cloud and water vapour feedbacks, that I believe we will not be able to master in the near future. It has been documented that negative feedbacks could abolish any warming by co2.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

QUOTE

the variability of the air temperature at these
stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2
concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system%u2019s negative
feedback.


http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/comirishy p.pdf



Right, but they can focus the heat where it can impact the Global Temperature significantly. It is well documented that El Nino and La Nina dominate Climate Variability.

I have no idea why I am up at 2 am, but I should be heading to sleep now. :) Goodnight.
I see you agree with most my post, but I think you may have missed the main point of my post.

The main point of that post was that all those ocean cycles affect global temperatures only because we measure surface temperatures. However, the total heat content of the ocean and atmosphere is not affected by these cycles at all. This is because these cycles have no effect on the total heat content and only have an effect on the distribution of this heat.

Co2 on the other hand does affect the total heat content of the earth. Therefore, our global temperature graph trends can be blamed on oscillations, however true global warming (by measurement of total heat in the oceans and atmosphere, NOT just the surface) can NOT be blamed on oscillations.

That is precisely what ghgs do. They alter the total heat of the planet by trapping extra heat which would otherwise escape. Oscillations do nothing to the total heat of the system (except maybe altering cloud cover as sirmaelstrom mentioned, but the relationship there is not at all understood).
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Looks like we can see another dip in Global Temperatures over the coming week.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting cyclonebuster:


That's the 64,000 dollar question.I am first trying to get interest of a university to computer model them first. Then from there who knows what may happen.


Well, I wish the best for you and your tunnels, Cyclone. :)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
To posts 171 & 176 regarding the PDO:

One thing for certain is that oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere because water has a much higher specific heat temp than air. So ocean cycles like the PDO and AMO do have an affect on the climate of earth.


I agree completely. The oceans storing heat and retaining that stored heat is also why the SSTs do not vary as much as the land based temperatures.



Quoting TomTaylor:

But this affect is not nearly the same as co2's affect.


Right. The PDO and AMO do not have as many complicated climatic feedbacks as co2 induced warming.

Quoting TomTaylor:

Ocean cycles affect the distribution of heat on earth. Co2 ghgs and other aerosols actually affect the total heat of earth's system.

Right, but where the redistributed heat is, is quite significant. The Equator sees the same average temperature, with little to no deviation from normal. When the oceanic oscillations focus the redistributed heat near the equator, to form more powerful El Ninos, it has the same impact, as if the Arctic were to have an entire anomaly of say, +20 Degrees C.

More El Ninos=More warming.

co2 induced warming is not quite as simple. You have complicated cloud and water vapour feedbacks, that I believe we will not be able to master in the near future. It has been documented that negative feedbacks could abolish any warming by co2.

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

QUOTE

the variability of the air temperature at these
stations during the last centuries shows that the influence of growing CO2
concentration in the atmosphere has been totally eliminated by the system’s negative
feedback.


http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/comirishy p.pdf

Quoting TomTaylor:


So in a global sense, the PDO and AMO have no affect on the total heat of earth. They only affect where the heat will be. However since we don't measure the total heat of earth, our graphs are altered by these cycles.


Right, but they can focus the heat where it can impact the Global Temperature significantly. It is well documented that El Nino and La Nina dominate Climate Variability.

I have no idea why I am up at 2 am, but I should be heading to sleep now. :) Goodnight.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I have yet to see 1 personal attack from a "denier"

This is a made up myth that they always use when we really know where the attacks come from.


I consider myself to be one of the most prominent skeptics on this forum, and unlike MichealSTL, I actually have a conscience of how I treat other people.

My favorite quote so far from him is this quote:

you clearly can't read at all and flunk at reading comprehension even if you can

I suspect that there will be more to come, since he seems to be the type of person that has no regard to other people that disagree with him.

However, I disagree that all CAGW Proponents are nasty like Michael. There are plenty of good CAGW Proponents who I have come to respect, all from another forum that cyclonebuster also participates in. Wayne is one from a forum that is nice, and debates respectfully. I also have come to respect TomTaylor from this board.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 191


I think the PDO does have an effect on overall cloud cover which in turn affects the heat loss to space, thus I'm not sure that it has no effect of the overall heat content. However this is as of yet poorly understood, so neglecting this for now I guess I would otherwise agree here. Our ability to measure the overall heat content of the climate system is unfortunately far inferior to our ability to measure the temperature at the surface*, which is why surface temperatures are usually what is emphasized when discussing warming. The PDO does seem to correlate there, which is why I think a portion of the warming seen by the methods that we can measure could be due to natural changes in the distribution of heat. If this is true, discounting this will lead to overestimating future warming.

*I realize we also measure temperatures in the upper ocean as well, but the resolution of these measurements is far less than surface temperature measurements, albeit far greater than those of the deep ocean.







yep exactly. Cloud cover is a good point, but the relationship is not understood
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Gulfstream Kinetic Energy prevents this also.A double whammy for this one what effects does TCE have on climate? Anyone here know?

Chemical Found in Crude Oil Linked to Congenital Heart Disease: Fetal Exposure to Solvents May Damage Heart

ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2011) %u2014 While it may be years before the health effects of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are known, a new study shows that fetal exposure to a chemical found in crude oil is associated with an increased risk of congenital heart disease (CHD).The study, presented on April 30 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Denver, also showed that babies who had been exposed in utero to a chemical found in cleaning agents and spot removers were at increased risk of CHD.

Environmental causes of CHD have been suspected, and animal studies have suggested certain chemicals may cause CHD, a problem with the heart's structure and function due to abnormal heart development before birth.

"Congenital heart disease is a major cause of childhood death and life-long health problems," said D. Gail McCarver, MD, FAAP, lead author of the study and professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Children's Research Institute, Milwaukee. "Thus, identifying risk factors contributing to CHD is important to public health."

Dr. McCarver and her colleagues sought to determine whether human fetal exposure to solvents is associated with increased risk for CHD. The researchers tested samples of meconium, or fetal stool, from 135 newborns with CHD and 432 newborns without CHD. Meconium has been used to assess fetal exposure to illicit drugs such as cocaine. Seventeen compounds were measured in meconium samples using methods that detect very low levels of chemicals.

Additional data collected included race of the mothers and infants, family history for CHD, and maternal alcohol, tobacco, vitamin and drug use.

Infants with chromosomal abnormalities known to be linked to CHD, and babies of diabetic mothers were excluded from the study.

Results showed that 82 percent of infants had evidence of intrauterine exposure to one or more of the solvents measured.

Among white infants, but not black infants, fetal exposure to ethyl benzene was associated with a four-fold increased risk of CHD. In addition, exposure to trichloroethylene was associated with a two-fold increased risk for CHD among white infants and an eight-fold increased risk among black infants.

"This is the first report that exposure to ethyl benzene, a compound present in crude oil, was associated with CHD," Dr. McCarver said. Humans also can be exposed to ethyl benzene through inhalation of motor vehicle emissions, gasoline pump vapors and cigarette smoke.

"The association with ethyl benzene exposure is concerning, particularly considering recent oil spills," she said. "However, additional confirmatory studies are needed."

The study also adds to existing concerns about trichloroethylene (TCE). "This is of particular importance because TCE is a commonly used degreasing agent, which also is present in many cleaners and spot removers. TCE also has been the most common chemical identified around hazardous waste sites," Dr. McCarver said.

"Limiting known maternal exposure to this compound during early pregnancy appears prudent, particularly among those at increased CHD risk," Dr. McCarver concluded.

Link

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
№ 191
Quoting TomTaylor:
To posts 171 & 176 regarding the PDO:

One thing for certain is that oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere because water has a much higher specific heat temp than air. So ocean cycles like the PDO and AMO do have an affect on the climate of earth. But this affect is not nearly the same as co2's affect. Ocean cycles affect the distribution of heat on earth. Co2 ghgs and other aerosols actually affect the total heat of earth's system. Unfortunately since temp graphs only show surface temps and not total heat of the earth, the AMO and PDO and other cycles alike (think ENSO) can give us a false sense of warming or cooling..

So in a global sense, the PDO and AMO have no affect on the total heat of earth. They only affect where the heat will be. However since we don't measure the total heat of earth, our graphs are altered by these cycles.

So to say the PDO or AMO are causing gw is wrong, because if we measured the total heat content of earth's system, these cycles would have zero effect. This is not the case with things like ghgs (co2), aerosols, or solar output, which actually affect the total heat entering or escaping earth's system.


I think the PDO does have an effect on overall cloud cover which in turn affects the heat loss to space, thus I'm not sure that it has no effect of the overall heat content. However this is as of yet poorly understood, so neglecting this for now I guess I would otherwise agree here. Our ability to measure the overall heat content of the climate system is unfortunately far inferior to our ability to measure the temperature at the surface*, which is why surface temperatures are usually what is emphasized when discussing warming. The PDO does seem to correlate there, which is why I think a portion of the warming seen by the methods that we can measure could be due to natural changes in the distribution of heat. If this is true, discounting this will lead to overestimating future warming.

*I realize we also measure temperatures in the upper ocean as well, but the resolution of these measurements is far less than surface temperature measurements, albeit far greater than those of the deep ocean.







Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting TomTaylor:


Snowlover did you read this post yet?


Nope, I did not. Thank you for refering me to it.

I have to go at the moment, so I will respond to your post tomorrow. :-) Goodnight.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
To posts 171 & 176 regarding the PDO:

One thing for certain is that oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere because water has a much higher specific heat temp than air. So ocean cycles like the PDO and AMO do have an affect on the climate of earth. But this affect is not nearly the same as co2's affect. Ocean cycles affect the distribution of heat on earth. Co2 ghgs and other aerosols actually affect the total heat of earth's system. Unfortunately since temp graphs only show surface temps and not total heat of the earth, the AMO and PDO and other cycles alike (think ENSO) can give us a false sense of warming or cooling..

So in a global sense, the PDO and AMO have no affect on the total heat of earth. They only affect where the heat will be. However since we don't measure the total heat of earth, our graphs are altered by these cycles.

So to say the PDO or AMO are causing gw is wrong, because if we measured the total heat content of earth's system, these cycles would have zero effect. This is not the case with things like ghgs (co2), aerosols, or solar output, which actually affect the total heat entering or escaping earth's system.


Snowlover did you read this post yet?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting Snowlover123:


Interesting image there Cyclone. How do you plan to implement these tunnels?


That's the 64,000 dollar question.I am first trying to get interest of a university to computer model them first. Then from there who knows what may happen.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting MichaelSTL:
A positive PDO (shown on the left) is NOT all about warmer water everywhere!


Right. But where it impacts where the warmer water is, (Equatorial Pacific or not) and it determines whether we have more frequent El Ninos or more La Ninas.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

Japan had their hottest summer on record last year because the PDO was negative, leading to warmer water by them.


You are correct that Japan had a hot summer, but that is one event. If what you say is true, then Japan should constantly see above average temperatures. Nope.



Japan had a very cold January, and had an unusual late season cold spell and snowfall.



Now why could that be? I had mentioned that the reason for why the PDO and AMO impact the continents was the onshore flow. It is also impacted by another factor: The Jet Stream.

QUOTE

Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow air currents found in the atmospheres of some planets, including Earth. The main jet streams are located near the tropopause, the transition between the troposphere (where temperature decreases with altitude) and the stratosphere (where temperature increases with altitude).[1] The major jet streams on Earth are westerly winds (flowing west to east).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Stream

So perhaps Japan doesn't feel the impacts of the -PDO due to the Jet Streams carrying air currents from West to East.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

Funny also that the PDO has been "cooling" since the 1980s - yet it has continued to warm at virtually the same rate! Never mind that the AMO only went positive in the mid-1990s, decades before the current warming started!


From post 200.

That sentence is technically incorrect. The PDO can not be "cooling off" since it is not a measurement of temperature. The PDO is measured the same way a velcoity time graph in physics would be measured.



Note that while the velocity time graph in this image shows a decrease near the end, the position time graph continues to increase. The position time would be the temperature and the velocity time would be the PDO.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

aerosols from industrial activity are man-made and almost entirely in the troposphere (the lower layer of earth%u2019s atmosphere, where most of our weather takes place).


Does the isotopic signature of the aerosoles show that they were mainly man made? If so, man made aerosoles played a part helped the cooling from 1940-1975.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

By the way, aerosols are still present, masking probably half of the warming that otherwise would have occurred.


If aerosoles are still here, then why aren't we seeing Global Cooling? The rate of increase in Carbon Dioxide did not increase much, so why did it start warming if the PDO is not to blame, and there are still aerosoles?

Quoting MichaelSTL:

La Nina actually accelerates global warming by cooling


LOL accelerating Global Warming by cooling... classic.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699



NOAA Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128344
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Ok sure.

First the graphic.



Interesting image there Cyclone. How do you plan to implement these tunnels?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting MichaelSTL:


LOL, LOL

I wonder how the globe can be gaining energy overall if these magical ocean currents simply move heat around?!


Quoting MichaelSTL:

you clearly can't read at all and flunk at reading comprehension even if you can


I discussed that already on Post 171. I'll repost it here, however.

POST 171

From NASA

"This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can intensify La Ni%uFFFDr diminish El Ni%uFFFDmpacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Ni%uFFFDccurring in the Pacific Ocean."

The El Nino exerts extra energy into the atmosphere. With a PDO, that creates more El Ninos, which in turn released more energy into the air.

Your link is off topic, which is why I question your reading comprehension. We aren't talking about the THC. We're talking about the PDO/AMO.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

PS: THE PDO HAS BEEN COOLING SINCE THE 1980s YET IT IS STILL WARMING!


That sentence is technically incorrect. The PDO can not be "cooling off" since it is not a measurement of temperature. The PDO is measured the same way a velcoity time graph in physics would be measured.



Note that while the velocity time graph in this image shows a decrease near the end, the position time graph continues to increase. The position time would be the temperature and the velocity time would be the PDO.

Quoting MichaelSTL:

PPS: you clearly can't read at all and flunk at reading comprehension even if you can


Sad and low personal attack.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting TomTaylor:
Post 171 Snowlover, see post 191

right and wrong with regard to what?

The fact that globe is warming? Ok

but the future effects and how much warming humans are responsible for is still debated.

Of course they are debated; that's how science works, or is supposed to. But in the real world, this hasn't happened with AGW.

See, a science-minded person looks at the overwhelming data and says, "While the theory isn't fully fleshed out, and some details have yet to be filled in, it fits and appears to be getting more correct with each passing day." And the most profitable corporations in the most profitable industry the world has ever known look upon this as a threat.

Meanwhile, the person who is unfamiliar with the scientific method looks at that same data and says, "Gee, the theory isn't fully fleshed out, and some details have yet to be filled in, so therefore it doesn't fit and must be rejected altogether." And the most profitable corporations in the most profitable industry the world has ever known look upon this as an opportunity.

Which side do you imagine gets the money? The financial backing? And all that money buys attention from the mainstream media. It buys political candidates. It buys huge and well-orchestrated disinformation campaigns. And so gullible Americans--especially on the same end of the political spectrum that believed until Wednesday that the President was born outside the country--have listened to those campaigns, and the comforting words they produce. "There's no warming. CO2 is healthy for you. Our product can dump hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year with absolutely no ill effect."

No more, Tom. The confident quiet displayed by scientists has been misinterpreted as weakness or lack of conviction by those who care only about profit, and that has to stop. Holding hands and singing "Kumbayah" with the denialists has only made things worse; it would be insanity to keep doing what we've been doing.

Thomas Jefferson famously said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." So ridicule I will.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
Post 171 Snowlover, see post 191

Quoting Neapolitan:

That may be true, Tom--but only one side has science behind it. Sitting back and playing nice and hoping the deniers will eventually "get it" if we just politely explain the facts and let them think about it simply hasn't worked. We're going on decades now, and the planet continues to get warmer and warmer, while denialists, emboldened and bolstered by pro-pollution dollars, have weaseled their way into the halls of Congress.

One side's right; the other side isn't. Please don't fall prey to the siren song of false equivalence.
right and wrong with regard to what?

The fact that globe is warming? Ok

but the future effects and how much warming humans are responsible for is still debated.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Climate mythology: The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change

Using observations and climate models we found that, at the latitudes of Europe, the atmospheric heat transport exceeds that of the ocean by several fold. In winter it may even by an order of magnitude greater. Thus it is the atmosphere, not the ocean, that does the lion's share of the work ameliorating winter climates in the extratropics. We also found that the seasonal absorption and release of heat by the ocean has a much larger impact on regional climates than does the movement of heat by ocean currents.

1. Fifty percent of the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic is caused by the eastward atmospheric transport of heat released by the ocean that was absorbed and stored in the summer.
2. Fifty percent is caused by the stationary waves of the atmospheric flow.
3. The ocean heat transport contributes a small warming across the basin.

The seasonal ocean heat storage and pattern of atmospheric heat transport add up to make winters in western Europe 15 to 20 degrees C warmer than those in eastern North America. A very similar process occurs across the Pacific Ocean. The ocean heat transport warms the North Atlantic Ocean and the land on both sides by a modest few degrees C. The only place where the ocean heat transport fundamentally alters climate is along the coast of northern Norway which would be sea ice-covered were it not for the warm northward flowing Norwegian Current.


So are you saying that cooling the Gulfstream by 15 to 20 degrees during the summer months will have no effect on global climate?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting TomTaylor:
There's personal attacks on both sides

That may be true, Tom--but only one side has science behind it. Sitting back and playing nice and hoping the deniers will eventually "get it" if we just politely explain the facts and let them think about it simply hasn't worked. We're going on decades now, and the planet continues to get warmer and warmer, while denialists, emboldened and bolstered by pro-pollution dollars, have weaseled their way into the halls of Congress.

One side's right; the other side isn't. Please don't fall prey to the siren song of false equivalence.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I have yet to see 1 personal attack from a "denier"

This is a made up myth that they always use when we really know where the attacks come from.
can we not play the finger pointing game?

There's personal attacks on both sides
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
To posts 171 & 176 regarding the PDO:

One thing for certain is that oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere because water has a much higher specific heat temp than air. So ocean cycles like the PDO and AMO do have an affect on the climate of earth. But this affect is not nearly the same as co2's affect. Ocean cycles affect the distribution of heat on earth. Co2 ghgs and other aerosols actually affect the total heat of earth's system. Unfortunately since temp graphs only show surface temps and not total heat of the earth, the AMO and PDO and other cycles alike (think ENSO) can give us a false sense of warming or cooling..

So in a global sense, the PDO and AMO have no affect on the total heat of earth. They only affect where the heat will be. However since we don't measure the total heat of earth, our graphs are altered by these cycles.

So to say the PDO or AMO are causing gw is wrong, because if we measured the total heat content of earth's system, these cycles would have zero effect. This is not the case with things like ghgs (co2), aerosols, or solar output, which actually affect the total heat entering or escaping earth's system.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I love it, Cyclone.


I do too. Of course there is much more to it than that but at least you can see what the Heck I am talking about with it. I built a scale model of one and made youtube videos of it working in a stream I found here in Alabama.I works perfectly even in a very slow current which is 20 times less than the speed of the Gulfstream.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


Sure! Could you present the evidence?


Ok sure.

First the graphic.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Don't worry about him. His classification and ostracization of those of whom does not fit into his tight, narrow-minded agenda is about what I would expect from Neapolitan.

Nothing new there Halo. *Yawn*


Just letting the 'readers' know.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting Neapolitan:

Wrong on all counts. The report is debunked nonsense. It's lies. It's garbage. It has absolutely no basis in fact. And it's only a "thorn" because it's annoying to us that denialists can only respond to science with personal attacks, untruths, and political blather.

Here, have a look: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseactio n=background.view&backgroundid=00525


I have yet to see 1 personal attack from a "denier"

This is a made up myth that they always use when we really know where the attacks come from.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Snowlover needs to explain why the Southern Hemisphere doesn't show any of the variation seen in the Northern hemisphere if the PDO and AMO are the cause and they affect the entire globe.


Perhaps maybe the NH has more land than the SH?



Thus it is more variable than the SH, since the land temperatures are more variable than the ocean temperatures.

The Global Average though shows that when the PDO was cool, the temperatures cooled, and vise versa.

Quoting MichaelSTL:
Also, I wonder if his handle has anything to do with why he denys that warming is occurring, since it means less snow (well, depending on where you live). But I like snow too but that doesn't make me deny that it is warming.


LOL I thought Global Warming meant more snow???

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-27/opinion/kaku.s nowstorms.global.warming_1_global-warming-monster- snowstorms-human-activity?_s=PM:OPINION

But we all love our conspiracy theories...

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 232 - 182

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
54 °F
Partly Cloudy