“Profound” climate variability engine found – leakage around the Cape of Good Hope “could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong”

File:Cape of good hope.JPG

The sign at the Cape of Good Hope - Image from Wikipedia

From the National Science Foundation: Threading the Climate Needle: The Agulhas Current System

Increased Agulhas “leakage” significant player in global climate variability

Agulhas Current system and its "leakage" into the Atlantic Ocean, affecting climate. - Click to enlarge


Additional photos here

The Agulhas Current which runs along the east coast of Africa may not be as well known as its counterpart in the Atlantic, the Gulf Stream. But now researchers are taking a closer look at this current and its “leakage” from the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic Ocean–and what that may mean for climate change

In results of a study published in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science Oceanographer Lisa Beal, suggests that Agulhas leakage could be a significant player in global climate variability.

The Agulhas Current transports warm and salty waters from the tropical Indian Ocean to the southern tip of Africa. There most of the water loops around to remain in the Indian Ocean (the Agulhas Retroflection), while some water leaks into the fresher Atlantic Ocean via giant Agulhas rings.

Once in the Atlantic, the salty Agulhas leakage waters eventually flow into the Northern Hemisphere and act to strengthen the Atlantic overturning circulation by enhancing deep-water formation.

Atlantic overturning circulation is technically known as Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC); it carries warm shallow water into northern latitudes and returns cold deep water southward across the equator.

Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.

The finding is profound, oceanographers say, because it suggests that increased Agulhas leakage could trigger a strengthening in Atlantic overturning circulation–at a time when warming and accelerated meltwater input in the North Atlantic has been predicted to weaken it.

“This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe,” said Beal.

“Instead, increasing Agulhas leakage could stabilize the oceanic heat transport carried by the Atlantic overturning circulation.”

There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.

These data are further evidence that the Agulhas system and its leakage play an important role in the planet’s climate, Beal and others say.

“This study shows that local changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the Southern Hemisphere can affect the strength of the ocean circulation in unexpected ways,” said Eric Itsweire, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s physical oceanography program, which funded the research.

“Under a warming climate,” said Itsweire, “the Agulhas Current system near the tip of South Africa could bring more warm salty water from the Indian to the Atlantic Ocean and counteract opposing effects from the Arctic Ocean.”

The study establishes the need for additional research in the region that focuses on Agulhas rings, as well as on the leakage, believes Beal.

Climate modeling experiments are critical, she said, and need to be supported by paleoceanographic data and sustained observations to firmly establish the role of the Agulhas system in a warming climate.

“Our goal now is to get more of the scientific community involved in research on the Agulhas system and its global effects,” said Beal. “The emphasis has been too long in the North Atlantic.”

The Agulhas Current Time-Series Experiment, or ACT, was launched in April 2010 to measure the variability of the Agulhas Current using a combination of current meter moorings and satellite data.

Beal, who serves as chief scientist, spent one month aboard the research vessel Knorr in the southwest Indian Ocean deploying oceanographic instruments.

The data gathered in situ, when combined with along-track satellite information, will help increase our understanding of how the Agulhas system is changing in a warming climate, Beal said.

The scientific team included Beal, Wilhelmus P.M. de Ruijter of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, Arne Biastoch of Leibniz- Institut für Meereswissenschaften (IFM-GEOMAR) in Germany, and Rainer Zahn of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in Spain.

It also included members of the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR) Working Group 136 on the Climatic Importance of the Agulhas System, sponsored by SCOR, the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and the World Climate Research Program.

For information on the program, please visit the ACT website.

-NSF-

About these ads

146 thoughts on ““Profound” climate variability engine found – leakage around the Cape of Good Hope “could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong”

  1. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    They appear to be so deeply in love with the notion of human-induced climate change that it completely escapes them that changes in the Agulhas leakage may be a cause of the little climate change as we have experienced, rather than an effect.

  2. These blokes never cease to amaze me…

    This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong

    Is the Pope Catholic? Do bears Cr4p in the woods?

    They’re not fair dunkum are they?

    For learned and educated people they do a good job at imitating stupidity.

    I give up. Giv ‘em the planet. They deserve to see what their idiocy will deliver.
    Just like kids, sometimes you have to give ‘em room to hurt ‘emselves.

    Meanwhile, all the focus is on the northern hemisphere ocean currents. Eerrrr, Einstein, the Southern Hemisphere has more water. Not worth looking at before now?

    I’m gonna go dig a hole and live in that for a while, for gaaawwwddds sake.

  3. “This study shows that local changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the Southern Hemisphere can affect the strength of the ocean circulation in unexpected ways,” said Eric Itsweire, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s physical oceanography program, which funded the research.

    “Under a warming climate,” said Itsweire, “the Agulhas Current system near the tip of South Africa could bring more warm salty water from the Indian to the Atlantic Ocean and counteract opposing effects from the Arctic Ocean.”

    The study establishes the need for additional research in the region that focuses on Agulhas rings, as well as on the leakage, believes Beal. Translation: We need more money for further research in this desolate region of our planet.

  4. 1) Start with false assumption (human-caused climate warming).
    2) Extrapolate consequences shamelessly.
    3) Recommend something foolish.

    Money will be thrown at you for your helpfulness!

  5. “The study establishes the need for additional research in the region that focuses on Agulhas rings, as well as on the leakage, believes Beal.”

    No matter what the subject or what the research shows, every study shows the need for more study, and more importantly for more funding.

  6. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change”.

    This isn’t research.

    Credibility: Zero.

  7. First we see tree rings used to “create” an issue. Now I guess it’s time to use Agulhas rings?

  8. Always, thw obligatory, “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

  9. and to think….
    …it all started because someone wondered if there was a natural explanation for the lion fish (Pterois miles and P. volitans) that were discovered in the Bahamas and Florida……

  10. Are we talking cause or effect here?
    Ocean currents keep global temperatures in balance, who would have thunk it?

  11. I didn’t know that I lived in a “desolate region of the planet”. There are quite a lot of us in the Southern Hemisphere, as well as a lot of sea water. Ocean currents have been studied by scientific sailors and explorers for a couple of hundred years, and they are still far from being fully mapped. As for human-induced ‘climate change’ influencing them, I wonder that they have never though they might have this the wrong way round.

  12. As the air circulation systems move poleward or equatorward or the jets shift between meridionality or zonality then of course there will be consequences in the circulation of the upper levels of the oceans under changing wind pressures both in terms of direction and intensity.

    The degree of ‘leakage’ from one ocean basis to another will obviously vary accordingly and will equally obviously affect air temperatures and in turn obviously will modify the global response to whatever shifts the air circulation systems and/or the jetstreams in the first place.

    Once again we are back to top down solar effects on the air circulation systems being modified by a bottom up oceanic response.

    Can’t anyone else join the dots ?

  13. The Agulhas current is in the same league as the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio currents. They are all caused by the same physical mechanism and have similar climate impacts. The data is not very good for the region, however, since there are lots of different mini-currents making up the greater Agulhus and these can have different temperatures etc.

    Have a look at a zoom-in of part of the Agulhus current system in the last 30 days. Pretty unusual.

    Full global look to provide a little perspective it extends out farther than the above zoom-in.

  14. Man used to pray for rain, now some pray for money to be showered upon them.
    They do this by assuming AGW is the cause, then ask for research to prove it.
    If there is a concensus, as they claim, why do they need more proof?
    They never had any, and are still looking for it.
    Isn’t that rather extravagant in hard times?

  15. Nick says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    “I give up. Giv ‘em the planet. They deserve to see what their idiocy will deliver.”

    Give them half the planet and let them compete with the other half. No food aid allowed! ;-)

  16. Can’t wait to see this piece of nonsense torn apart.

    Still, they do imply that climate researchers know less than they thought, something that I find hard to disagree with..

    Maybe sometime I’ll do a search for every piece of research over the last few years that’s got that same dreadful phrase and see just how little the experts knew before they embarked on their crusade.

  17. If they know enough to say it is profound then they do not need to study it anymore. They say it is profound yet all they can say next it that it “suggests…”. If they mean could be profound, well, there’s lots of things that could be profound…

    And where does the cold water that is displaced from the Altantic go? They don’t refer to the bigger energy balance.

  18. lol, they just can’t stop looking for things to be scared of.

    “Oh noes! We’re having too much leakage!!” ——– quit buying the off brands and stick with Depends.

  19. I agree with Nick above. Give ‘em the Planet. And when the Revolutionaries put them up against the wall and shoot them with icy bullets, they may realise the folly of their ways, as they discover the embracing arms of Gaia are just dirt.

  20. some twisted logic.

    1. criticize models for not capturing everything
    2. scientist finds something not well represented in the models
    3. scientist suggests more study ( to fix #1)
    4. people complain that scientist does number 3.

    damned if they do, damned if they don’t

    that’s not exactly fair to them folks

  21. After world temperatures appeared to peak in 1998, the number of climate scientists producing an ever increasing amount of drivel has “sky rocketed, exponentially” (their terminology not mine)

    Meanwhile, back on planet earth, not much has happened to temperatures, perhaps a bit down if anything.

    Is this the correlation and negative feedback that Hansen missed back in 1988?

    It seems as likely as the CO2 scam

  22. There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.

    Yet the current leakage is caused by human induced global warming.

    This is a prime Homer Simpson moment. D’OH

    However, the study is worthwhile because finally it is sinking in that the oceans drive temperature, not a miniscule trace gas.

  23. It’s interesting how different people focus on different parts of the article. The part that struck me the most was the following:

    Climate modeling experiments are critical, she said, and need to be supported by paleoceanographic data and sustained observations to firmly establish the role of the Agulhas system in a warming climate.

    ie. Form a hypothesis (model) and then test it with real data….

  24. Wow! Impressive. Water mixes on a round Earth spinning with a speed of 460 m/s, about 1,070 mph while spinning the Earth is moving around the Sun, the whole Solar System is moving around the Galaxy and the Galaxy is moving through space! This is devastating stuff. Meanwhile the moon causes tides to rise and lower. We must have money to study this phenomenon. Surely this spinning ball must have winds, waves, and countless currents – MONEY! We MUST have money. This surely is a study worth millions! And this yellow thing in the sky? What is this? MONEY! We need even more money to investigate.

  25. No researcher who had the phrase “human caused climate change (or warming) deserves fair treatment since they’ve already indicated that they themselves are biased.

  26. “…caused primarily by human-induced climate change.” Do we have yet another re-branding, “Human-induced Climate Change” or HICC? Or, since all or the GCM’s and other IPCC ouija boards predict that the temperature only goes in one direction, UP, should we now call it HICC-UP?

  27. steven mosher says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    some twisted logic.

    1. criticize models for not capturing everything
    2. scientist finds something not well represented in the models
    3. scientist suggests more study ( to fix #1)
    4. people complain that scientist does number 3.

    damned if they do, damned if they don’t

    that’s not exactly fair to them folks
    ==========================================

    They made their bed when they insisted on being the eyes, ears and mouths of our policy makers based upon incomplete findings. We knew they were incomplete, they knew the findings were incomplete, the whole damned world knew it was guesstimations (at best, political advocacy more likely) and much of the Western Civilization had Kyoto shoved up their posteriors anyway.

    They damned themselves on their first “do” when the rest of the world was screaming “don’t”.

    And Steve, they’re not fixing anything, they’re looking for more stuff to try to scare people with. While it didn’t explicitly say it, they might as well have said, “It’s worse than we thought!”

  28. Yeah, I wouldn’t rag on these guys too much.

    They need research money too, and “climate research” is where the $ is at, at first glance it seems pretty pro-forma stuff to appeal too…..in order to actually do some primary research on on less well know current that might have some real consequences.

    The interesting things about a lot of the climate research is that if you strip out the chicken little verbiage some of it _is_ decent research.

    The amazing thing to me is that all these little factoids are being conflated into some big climate thing, when what we are really doing is peering at the elephant through a keyhole. It’s gray and hairy and moving…. the fact that you think it’s an elephant is speculation, but with a lot more peeing over time, you MIGHT get to be able to identify what the heck it is you are looking at.

  29. Hate to take the easy road, but……….

    “could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong”

    I thought that was always a given.

  30. Steve Mosher
    Thing is Steven why do they try to tie everything in to AGW,we all know the models are wrong because you can not account for everything that happens in earths ocean/climate,why don’t these researchers just come out and say it all a part of the natural variations of the planet systemsand we donj’t understand the mechinism, instead of its happening because of AGW.It’s been happening before we stared to put Co2 in the planets atmosphere/oceans and will more likely continue to happen long after we are gone from this planet.

  31. steven mosher says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    that’s not exactly fair to them folks
    ===================================================
    mosh get serious
    They jumped the shark, tagged it to global warming…..

    The only thing profound about associate professor Lisa Beal’s paper is that she meet the requirements, and how many times she was able to work ‘could’ and ‘suggests’ into one paper……………….

  32. Since the fundamental of CAGW is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere heats the atmosphere and then the oceans/land in a top-down way, this doesn’t impact the results of the IPCC theory. The heat moves around differently, but that’s it. The IPCC models were “matched” to historical records. Even though the details of the mechanisms aren’t correct, the net result won’t change.

    The heating of the planet and ice melt rates are all that need to be watched. When these fall off the predictions, either the amount of forcing for CO2 is wrong or there are negative feedback mechanisms not in their models. Both invalidate CAGW principles. 60% of a 3C warming rate is no longer a carbon-tax target when the End of Mankind is what has driven the scare so far.

    Let people study what they will. It’s the metrics in the next few years that will do the dirty deed.

  33. The science is finally settled. Someone call Al Gore. I can sleep easy now knowing that the science if finally and utterly settled. Prepare for Thermageddon!!!!

  34. Mosh, Mosh, Mosh…. you’ve been in this game long enough to understand climate talk. When a researcher uses the words such as “warming planet” they’re not just referring to a measurement of surface temperature. It’s “Human Induced Global Warming” by it’s shorthand and even that really means CO2. Unless the researcher has been branded a denialist and heretic you know that’s what they’re really saying.

  35. Steve,

    It’s not ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’. It’s damned if they jump to the conclusion of ‘human caused’ without the empirical evidence to back it up.

  36. I predict that in years to come our children will laugh at this current generation of so called ‘climate scientists.’ It will become clear that the nonsense that gushes out is being fuelled by money. Governments now find themselves making decisions based on utter natural chaos and climate scientists’ need to make ends meet. It could be as simple as that.

  37. I’m with Mosh here… these guys are out there actually gathering real data, which they freely suggest might well invalidate the all-seeing, all-knowing models.

    Surely that is exactly what’s needed??

    Yeah, they throw in the obligatory crumb to HICC-UP, but that’s about getting funds, and without said funds the science doesn’t get done…

  38. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change”

    This is their seeeking-more-funding statement. However, the assumption, after all of this that it is caused by “human-induced climate change” means that I lose most of my confidence in anything they may have found. Except for the fact that they are saying that the IPCC is wrong in their predictions, their support of junk science indicates a clear lack of clear thinking on their part. They send a disturbing mixed message.

    I want to see how they support the idea that climate change is “human-induced.”

  39. Fred2, problem is that if these guys were simply playing the game so they could get funding for honest research, they have already tainted their research; they have to produce the desired result, or no more government (read “The Peoples'”) money.

  40. An honest scientist would want to do more research to determine what came first, “the chicken or the egg.” Beal has obviously already decided that without the research. Anything she does now is tainted with her obvious prejudice.

  41. Stephen Wilde says: “As the air circulation systems move poleward or equatorward or the jets shift between meridionality or zonality then of course there will be consequences in the circulation of the upper levels of the oceans under changing wind pressures both in terms of direction and intensity…”

    I believe you have this backwards, Stephen. The temperatures of the western boundary currents and their extensions steer the jets/air circulation systems. The oceans and atmosphere are, of course, coupled, but the oceans having more mass would be the dominant factor.

  42. Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.

    The finding is profound, oceanographers say, because it suggests that increased Agulhas leakage could trigger a strengthening in Atlantic overturning circulation–at a time when warming and accelerated meltwater input in the North Atlantic has been predicted to weaken it.

    I stopped reading right there. They just discovered this increased leakage and already know that more is caused by humans. They also start with the belief that humans are causing global warming. I sure wish I could make broad generalizations based on little evidence.

  43. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change”.

    What credibility was in this research has been lost with this non scientific quote. Suppose to be new research and only been discovered, yet straight away it is caused by humans? Firstly, where is this evidence that humans can actually alter the circulation of the ocean in any part of the world, nevermind this recently noticable finding. A few decades is nothing during climate of the planet and what evidence shows that this wouldn’t had occurred before. The answer to these questions is simple, that there is no evidence that supports this and anybody half awake know this has put in on purpose to continuing funding and/or for it to be edited at last minute to get published. It’s a automatic assumption that is forced by the team & co, but read contents of 80+ percent of alarmed papers and the substance never supports this conclusion.

  44. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    It wouldn’t have been published without that propaganda tagline.

  45. This sentence:

    Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.

    was likely written by the NSF’s PR person. The first clause does seem like it could be very important. The second clause I’ll simply ignore.

    One of the attributes of “The Year Without a Summer,” 1816 was that the storm track didn’t retreat far into Canada that year, at least that’s the impression I got from reading up on it. There were some quite warm days in New England, but those were wiped out by a cold front that brough snow and serious cold. Things weren’t so variable further south, so I assume the storm track didn’t get down that far.

    It looks as though the Agulhas leakage may be affected by a similar effect. Easy to study, ought to be studied. Warm climate leads to Indian Ocean dumping hot water into Atlantic, cool climate keeps water in the Indian Ocean. Positive feedback in the Atlantic, negative feedback in the Indian Ocean. Lots of predictions that can be made – and tested.

    The data gathered … will help increase our understanding of how the Agulhas system is changing in a warming climate, Beal said.

    Bummer. Well, if we’re starting a few decades of cooling, that will be interesting to study too!

  46. I couldn’t find the bit where they explain how global warming (human induced or otherwise) leads to more leakage. I think it goes something like this.

    Dear Lisa’s Diary,
    Been hanging around with the boys on a boat in the Indian Ocean for a month now. Running out of cash. Let me think…

  47. Oh. I could so rif on this post title. Any woman worth her age could take this to a local tavern on Friday night and have the entire place rolling on the floor in laughter.

  48. Here’s some background on Earth’s Thermohaline Circulation;

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

    [video src="http://www.cmar.csiro.au/currents/global/CSIRO_Conveyor_Oceans_M.wmv" /]

    NASA’s Ocean Motion page also offers some good insights;

    http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm

    as does this page;

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html

    this page;

    http://www.womenoceanographers.org/Default.aspx?pid=28EF75D5-D130-46c0-947E-5CCBC627B0EE&id=AmyBower

    and on this page;

    http://web.deu.edu.tr/atiksu/toprak/ani4083.html

    these visualizations were helpful;

    This map shows where cold ocean water is sinking;

    this one shows where heat is released to the atmosphere

    and this animation is helpful in visualizing the process:

    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewVideo.do?fileid=46592&id=32693

    In addition to temperature and salinity Earth’s rotation comes into play, especially around Antarctica;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg

    which is also called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;

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

    and is “the largest ocean current.” “at approximately 125 Sverdrups”. Given that “The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1 sverdrup.”;

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

    this circulation is of an amazing scale. Also Figure 2 about two third down this page;

    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Currents.html

    offers another perspective. And this page offers technical insights on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current:

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter13/chapter13_04.htm

    These maps seem to indicate an interesting circulation at the North Pole as well:

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727

    “The comparison suggests that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has slowed by about 30 per cent between 1957 and 2004.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04385.html

    In this presentation on the Atlantic Meridinol overturning circulation, the chart Slide 4 seems to indicate a slight slowdown, but the alignment between data sets appears awful and the resultant divergent predictions laughable:

    http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/meetings/oopc-9/presentations/monAM/Bryden_rapid4oopc.pdf

    On the other hand, this article from November 29th, 2008 in Nature, is titled, “North Atlantic cold-water sink returns to life – Convective mixing resumes after a decade due to massive loss of Arctic ice.”

    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081129/full/news.2008.1262.html

    The claim that it resumed “after a decade due to massive loss of Arctic ice.” seems dubious considering that there does not appear to have been a “massive loss of Arctic Ice”;

    but this article from January 9, 2009;

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347

    also asserts that “One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.

    The “pump” in question is in the western North Atlantic Ocean, where pools of cold, dense water form in winter and sink beneath less-dense warmer waters. The sinking water feeds into the lower limb of a global system of currents often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor (View animation (Quicktime)). To replace the down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.”

    The previous article were based upon this paper:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n1/abs/ngeo382.html

  49. mct says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    I’m with Mosh here… these guys are out there actually gathering real data, which they freely suggest might well invalidate the all-seeing, all-knowing models.
    Surely that is exactly what’s needed??
    =====================================================
    Horse crap…..
    This is nothing more than a race to see who gets the most free money to continue their particular brand of global warming.
    She is trying to say that her brand of global warming “is worse than we thought”, so she needs a bigger piece of the pie……………………..

    “This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe,” said Beal.

  50. Bob Tisdale the poles thermal deficit directs atmospheric circulation. It is the strength of this circulation that also create or not upwellings. Read Leroux.

  51. mct says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I’m with Mosh here… these guys are out there actually gathering real data, which they freely suggest might well invalidate the all-seeing, all-knowing models.
    ====================================================

    But no one will understand it to be a detriment to the credibility of cli-sci. It would be seen as a validation.

    What part of this “This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe,” said Beal. do you guys not understand? It’s simply more alarmism, wrapped in an appeal for our money, encased in the belief we can come to an understanding of our climate anytime soon.

    What’s the consensus on clouds and their effects? There is none? Then the models are wrong. I didn’t have to go to the Cape of Good Hope for that. If people don’t understand the models are wrong today, there is no amount of evidence you can provide that will convince them.

  52. I would like to see included with every paper, the grant proposal and the funding sources to which it was sent. That data would be useful in assigning an initial confidence level.

  53. wsbriggs says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Translation: We need more money for further research in this desolate region of our planet. (That will be just as inconclusive)

  54. James Sexton says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    What’s the consensus on clouds and their effects? There is none? Then the models are wrong
    =======================================================

    25% say global warming will create more clouds – and clouds cause warming
    25% say global warming will create more clouds – and clouds cause cooling
    25% say global warming will create less clouds – and clouds cause warming
    25% say global warming will create less clouds – and clouds cause cooling

  55. steven mosher says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    “some twisted logic.
    1. criticize models for not capturing everything
    2. scientist finds something not well represented in the models
    3. scientist suggests more study ( to fix #1)
    4. people complain that scientist does number 3.”
    damned if they do, damned if they don’t that’s not exactly fair to them folks”

    You left out the most important step, step zero:
    0. Scientists claims models have comprehensive account of climate and provide highly substantiated predictions of future manmade warming which should serve as the basis for a redesign of Western economies and culture.

    Then you overlook the next most important step, step 2.5.
    2.5. Scientists acknowledge that models do not cover an important element of climate but deny that this contradicts claim in “zero” that models are comprehensive and give probable predictions.

    If you want to do more study then Stand Down with your claims that your models are comprehensive and useful. Learn some modesty. We are perfectly happy that you do more studies. Just pay for them with your own dime and for Heaven’s Sake please stop the propaganda that all governments should invest in CO2 mitigation strategies.

  56. Here we go again! Put up a conjectured picture of AGW-affected THC, discover that it doesn’t correspond to observations, then conclude that more study is needed to resolve the problem, because it could be worse than we thought. No physical oceanographer worth their salt can buy into the intial premise.

  57. TomRude says: April 27, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Bob Tisdale the poles thermal deficit directs atmospheric circulation.

    No, “The driving force behind Atmospheric Circulation;

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

    is solar energy, which heats the atmosphere with different intensities at the equator, the middle latitudes, and the poles.”

    http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atmospheric-Circulation.html

    But there are a number of other factors including Gravity Waves;

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

    “on an air–sea interface are called surface gravity waves or Surface Waves”;

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

    “while internal gravity waves are called Inertial Waves”:

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

    “Rosby Waves;

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

    Geostrophic Currents

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

    and Geostrophic Wind

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

    are examples of inertial waves. Inertial waves are also likely to exist in the core of the Earth”

    Earth’s Rotational Energy;

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

    drives the Jet Stream;

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

    Westerlies;

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

    Tradewinds;

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

    Tropical Cyclones;

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

    Tornadoes:

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

    and Polar Vortices;

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

    which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”

    http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/

    and the “Brewer-Dobson Circulation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation

    discussed above is in fact induced by the growth and dissipation of these Atmospheric Waves”:

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

    http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_4.htm

    I am sure there are several other factors as well…

  58. Time for scientists in the climate field to start doing science using their own money….. ’cause the taxpayer is getting fed up with the whole scam. … and that’s climate science’s fault. Not ours.

  59. Just The Facts says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    You certainly present an impressive array of links illustrating the “Great Conveyor Belt” that soft-science undergraduate courses portray GHC to be . Inasmuch as the Agulhas Current is a classic WIND-driven western boundary current, however, the relevance to the paper at hand is unclear. And the whole idea that the miserably sluggish and highly diffuse GHC is the main global conveyor of oceanic heat–across the equator, no less–is a Gorean myth perpetrated upon a public profoundly unacquainted with oceanographic observations. The fact that Beal patently appeals to that myth in her paper disqualifies her as a professional in the field.

  60. I have to say I learned something from this post (actually, from the Wikipedia photo). It’s been over 60 years since I took geography, but I couldn’t believe that the Cape of Good Hope, is only at 34+ degrees south latitude. I had to go to my world atlas to confirm it. Heck, compared to northern Indiana, that’s practically the tropics! Regarding the study itself, I notice the usual appeal for further study (and funds, of course). That is the standard approach when dealing with sponsoring agencies. Your sponsor wants the studies to continue because his prestige is enhanced as well, ultimately on someone elses dime of course.

  61. Anyone?

    Could the subtropical front provide a throttling affect on the Agulhas Current that would limit or cut off the flow if Antarctic waters were cold enough, and the front moved far enough north?

    Just asking…

  62. CAUTION! The reading of this study may cause side effects such as:

    1. Blurry eyes

    2. Skin rash

    3. Bloody nose

    4. Myocardial infarction

    5. Head lice

    6. A bad mortgage

    7. Toenail fungus

    8. A 75 IQ

    9. Kidney stones

    10. Aghulas Leakage!

    With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

  63. TomRude says: “Bob Tisdale the poles thermal deficit directs atmospheric circulation. It is the strength of this circulation that also create or not upwellings. Read Leroux.”

    TomRude & Stephen Wilde: I may have to correct myself. I went looking for the paper I was referring to in my earlier comment and couldn’t find it. I did come up with one that seems to agree with what both of you are saying, though. Refer to Kelly and Dong (2004):

    http://kkelly.apl.washington.edu/preprints/KellyDong_monog2004.pdf

    I’ll look again tomorrow.

  64. This is profound, all right. Profound in its depth of cynicism. Profound in its outright and shameless agenda-serving. Here is a current that is poorly understood, by their own admission, but they can assert that climate change is affecting it? What total and utter B*!!s*ytte! (snip if you wish). It’s painful to read stuff like this, in all of its smug and shallow glory.

  65. sky says: April 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Inasmuch as the Agulhas Current is a classic WIND-driven western boundary current

    No, Boundary Currents;

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

    are subsets of Ocean Gyres;

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

    which are caused by Earth’s Rotation, not wind.

    the relevance to the paper at hand is unclear.

    There is a significant upwelling at the location of the “leakage”;

    http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/175_IR/chap_12/c12_f1.htm

    and “in the southeast Atlantic Ocean the current retroflects (turns back on itself) in the Agulhas Retroflection due to shear interactions with the strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current.”

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

    And the whole idea that the miserably sluggish and highly diffuse GHC is the main global conveyor of oceanic heat–across the equator, no less–is a Gorean myth perpetrated upon a public profoundly unacquainted with oceanographic observations.

    What’s the GHC? Are you talking about the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/atlantic-meridional-overturning-circulation-data/

  66. Do we only get the studies that show how much global warming is than ever anyone previously thought? Or do we only see the ones that do posted here? In a random sample of effects, one would think the studies would not all go one way.

  67. The ocean doesn’t generate its own heat. Enough of these ridiculous notions that the ocean drives everything.

    Water may have a higher heat capacity than air, but just as air cools diurnally, oceans cool annually. Decades not required.

    Not irradiance, but insolation. Not just clouds, but circulation. Not just time, but space. Not just process, but pattern.

    I’ve spent my whole life around water. It responds to circulation & insolation and it only takes 3 months to cool off enough to kill. Relying too heavily on anomalies blinds people. Myths about mysterious ocean currents are part of the problem.

    A few good exchanges going on here. Pleased to observe.

    Best Regards.

  68. “Dear lady can you hear the wind blow
    and did you know?
    Your stairway lies on the whisperin’ wind…”
    — Led Zeppelin

  69. “some twisted logic.
    1. criticize models for not capturing everything
    2. scientist finds something not well represented in the models
    3. scientist suggests more study ( to fix #1)
    4. people complain that scientist does number 3.

    damned if they do, damned if they don’t

    that’s not exactly fair to them folks
    ———————————————
    Twisting is claiming to know enough to pass legislation and then discovering things that are such powerful.
    No one knows the cloud cover 100 yrs ago but we are full of certainty to plot decimal degree differences. hahah. Farsical.

  70. Hmm. Continental positioning could be more important than thought? Doesn’t this one thing, if true, debase their modeling process prior to the next century also? If they have modeled the past correctly without including such a ‘profound’ climate engine, that speaks to the veracity of the model, no?

  71. And what does this current contribute to current warming anyway? They say they have paleo-data, but that is not likely to be granular enough to give a clear picture of what the current contribution to the GTA is. If the attribution studies have not accounted for a ‘profound’ and ‘abrupt’ climate engine, then the attribution studies are also grossly incorrect. A larger portion of the current anomaly would be explained. That would leave less warming to attribute to CO2, further undermining the case.

  72. I didn’t need a map to figure out that the IPCC has been leaking.
    At the rate they are taking on water, it’s a tossup between the voyage of the Titanic and the Poseidon Adventure, or better yet, the S.S. Concensus.

  73. “and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic ”

    Alas, but there is a strong one. Both OHC and SST peaked around 2006, despite 2010 SST peak.

  74. steven mosher says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    ” that’s not exactly fair to them folks ”

    Golly Steven, on that one I have to agree with you.

  75. If the science is settled, why do they need more research money?

    Doesn’t this say it all? “caused primarily by human-induced climate change”

    They already know the answer they are looking for, now they want money to find “facts” to support it. Those facts that are contrary they will “hide” through a “smart trick” of science.

  76. I’m confused. Does this mean that it’s worse than they think or that it is worse than we think?

  77. Actually, this is quite comical: human-induced climate change has made the IPCC wrong.

    That would have to be one of the best effects of AGW (were it true).

  78. Bob Tisdale says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:19 pm Bob, I also referred to the bottom up oceanic effect. There are two opposing processes involved. Top down solar and bottom up oceanic.

  79. >>Mosher
    >>some twisted logic.
    >>1. criticize models for not capturing everything

    But don’t forget, Steve, that the ‘Science is Settled’.
    The criticism is fair and justified.

    .

  80. “This could mean”, “it suggests”, “could trigger”, “has been predicted”, “could stabilize” etc etc !

    and this followed the post on the East Greenland Current having no trend and they wonder why we are sceptical!

  81. To paraphrase Stalin – the number of dead models is going from a catastrophe to a statistic.

  82. Climate modeling experiments are critical, she said, and need to be supported by paleoceanographic data and sustained observations to firmly establish the role of the Agulhas system in a warming climate.

    Isn’t that the wrong way round?

  83. Sorry Steve Mosher, but when earnest scientists start from a pre-judged agenda and include fatuous comments such as ‘models could be wrong’ in the title, they make themselves a fair target for sceptcism, mild sarcasm and gentle mirth. You would have cause for complaint if the sceptics on WUWT used similar tactics to the arch-Warmists, not unknown on other blogs; swarming ad-hom attacks and general nastiness are not seen on WUWT, thanks to the civilised tone that Anthony rightly insists must be maintained.

  84. Does this mean all the $billions that’s been wasted in the West on bird mincers, and all the CO2 taxation we’ve been subjected to, and the $billions squandered on carbon trading has been for nought! Oh spiffing. So it’s not our fault after all – the blame for global warming – ooer, global warming! – lies squarely with the Indians and Chinese. Or maybe it’s those nasty pirates in Somalia, maybe it’s all their fault, churning up the waters with their boats as they bag another oil tanker for ransom. Then again, maybe it’s the great white sharks off the tip of South Africa, mixing the waters as they chase after seals, thus causing the leakage of warm water from the Indian Ocean into the South Atlantic. CAN I HAVE A GRANT TO STUDY THIS, PLEASE!

  85. First, *if* this finding is correct, there are a number of points to consider:

    – The role of the Agulhas has long been studied, and this is only one more in a sequence of growing understanding, and not a definitive conclusion (e.g. http://www.sajs.co.za/index.php/SAJS/article/view/160/281)

    – “the IPCC models are wrong” is a partial irrelevancy … (aside from the fact that the IPCC does not have models — more correctly these are modeling groups contributions to the CMIP archive which is reported on in the IPCC) … the primary importance of projections to society is on policy horizon time scales, and on these timescales the shutdown of the AMOC is not an issue.

    – If this paper is right, then the consequence is an exacerbation of warming in Europe … not good!

  86. There is leakage around the Cape of Good Hope..?
    Will someone for [snip . . pete's sake? . . kb] put the plug back in..!

  87. Gord Richmond says: April 27, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    They appear to be so deeply in love with the notion of human-induced climate change that it completely escapes them that changes in the Agulhas leakage may be a cause of the little climate change as we have experienced, rather than an effect.

    Well said!

    This is just classic group think in the extreme.

    They are literally blind to the absurdity of their claims and can’t even see the logical implication that this is another thing that causes natural variability – natural variability which they obstinately deny because it doesn’t fit their groupthink myopic viewpoint.

  88. The Agulhas current produces some freak waves sufficient to sink ships. Is this a way to create freak waves to sink the ship that is IPCC?

  89. John Marshall – it doesn’t need a freak wave – or ANY wave – to sink the IPCC…
    It would – and should – just sink….

  90. Profound!! The only profound thing in this study is the prostitution of science for monetary gain. Human Induced Climate Change!! 39/100 ths of one% of CO2 is causing major changes in ocean currents *****! Profound indeed that prostitution is the oldest known profession, these current so called modernist scientists have no shame, nor will they ever have real acclaim or a worthwhile reputation in history.

  91. “This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong,…..”

    Yet Western governments are asked to prepare first for warmer NH winters and now colder NH winters.

    Here is Dr. James Lovelock talking to the Guardian in March 2010.

    The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

  92. The entire report is made irrelevant by their comment “caused primarily by human-induced climate change.” This is simply an assertion. They have assumed what needs to be proved. Reference to hundreds of thousands of papers assuming what needs to be proved (the weight of the evidence?) does not remove the defect.

    Embedded in this totally irrelevant paper is a phrase that makes the paper even more irrelevant: “Climate modeling experiments are critical”.

    Excuse me. Since when is modeling an experiment? Experiments may be suggested by model results but the model results are NOT results from the real world. A model is nothing but a synthetic working form of an hypothesis at best or a rank off the wall speculation at worse. A model cannot produce data – no way and do how. Even if actual data from the real world matched the numbers from the model, the model is not proved to be a correct description of the real world. It is simply not disproved.

    So here we have it. The paper starts with an unproven assumption, asserts that a newly discovered phenomenon is changing, makes a Humpty Dumpty use of a trigger word, and concludes with “we need more money to study the problem.”

    They are NOT doing science. They are simply pimping for more free money.

    I have a simple answer for them: HELL NO!

  93. This confirms it, they are Insane. The Aghulas current is huge, massive and it flows round South Africa where it is joined by water from deep upwelling and continues as the Bengueala current. Where the hell is Leakage in a continuous system, How can a few molecules of gas effect trillions of tonnes of water flowing???????????

  94. Ocean current system is the most likely source of the long term natural climate change. This particular current may have its role, but I doubt that it is the primary cause.

  95. ‘Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by my wife changing the colour of her lipstick…’
    Any less logical..??

  96. Allan M says
    Climate modeling experiments are critical, she said, and need to be supported by paleoceanographic data and sustained observations to firmly establish the role of the Agulhas system in a warming climate.

    Isn’t that the wrong way round?
    ————————————————————————————–
    Not for a pre- judged outcome no,you can adjust the paleo data,real time observation
    is much more hard to adjust to the required meme…unless your name is Hansen!!

  97. Here is a chart of the Agulhus going back to 1871. It has strong multidecadal features like the other major ocean indicies such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

    Most importantly, it is highly correlated with Southern Hemisphere temperatures.

  98. Two thoughts:

    a) Is there good fishing down there? Mixing zones are usually great. (Weather study money and fishing could be a win-win).
    b) Leakage can be prevented by use of “Kendall Incontinence Diapers & Briefs. Free Shipping On Orders 49+”.

  99. Hmmmm…… increased leakage is caused by human emissions. But periods of massive leakage over the past 500,000 years linked to end of ice ages……… darn those humans and their emissions 500,000 years ago. Sounds like they completely contradict themselves?

  100. Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.

    Ah, so humans driving their cars is changing oceanic circulation. Of course! How could we be so blind? CO2 from our vehicles would just obviously be on the same order of the equation as the coriolis effect, solar heating, wind direction, sea floor morphology, etc..etc..

    The study establishes the need for additional research in the region that focuses on Agulhas rings, as well as on the leakage, believes Beal.

    Why would anyone financially support someone who jumps to conclusions as quoted above?

  101. In answer to the question whether the sub-tropical convergence could cut off the Agulhas Current, we published a paper in Paleooceanography that showed that the Agulhas Current kept going during the last glacial, rather than being cut off. However it was based on only 2 deep sea cores that sampled that period. I think people have agreed for a long while now that the Agulhas was an important leak of heat from the Indian to the Atlantic ocean, and it does it when, instead of retroflecting towards the subtropical convergence, rinks break off and float west into the S Atlantic. This became clearer through the era of satellite imagery where the warm Agulhas water is easily distinguished from Atlantic water. The rest of the implications are less clear.

  102. James Sexton says: April 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    What part of this “This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe,” said Beal. do you guys not understand?

    I thought that line is a set-up for how much warmer it will get in the western NH.

  103. Am I the only one seeing a conflict between these two statements from this report?
    “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    “There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.”

  104. Ferd says:
    April 28, 2011 at 7:50 am
    Am I the only one seeing a conflict between these two statements from this report?
    “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    “There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.”

    No, you’re most certainly not the only one!

    How come they are unable to see the contradiction for themselves?
    But more pertinent – scientists who have such ‘profound’ contradictions in their paper ought not to receive any more funding.

    Oh – and one wonders how come this wasn’t picked up by the peer reviewers, pre-publication?

  105. I think everyone is being very unfair to this respected bunch of mendicants. Al Gore got it much wronger – he had the Agulhas as a cold stream flowing north up the East Coast of Africa and the Benguela as a warm current flowing south on the West Coast. I think he was trying to talk about the thermohaline circulation, but he didn’t say so.

  106. TomRude says: April 28, 2011 at 10:40 am
    TomRude says: April 28, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Just the Facts (or Wikipedia…) Learning over parrotting.

    In fact Just the Facts, you quote too much of Wiki for not being one Canadian wiki writer… LOL

    Try arguing the facts, instead of trying to dismiss the sources…

    Furthermore, try to embrace the complexity, rather than making simplistic and inaccurate statements like, “the poles thermal deficit directs atmospheric circulation.”

  107. “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    They lack Canute’s wisdom:
    “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.”

    As if us puny humans could change the course of ocean currents.

    Shame on you for your hubris.

  108. “…caused primarily by human-induced climate change,” should be printed in a special type, so we can automatically delete such genuflection, if we have nothing to do with funding the writers-of-the-paper, and just want the science.

    Unfortunately the very people these scientists are genuflecting to are creating an economic morass, using Global Warming as a cornerstone of their quagmire-creation. Eventually, via hyper-inflation or else a stagflation-beyond-our-imagination, the economy will be in such a state that grant-money to study nuances in the Agulhas Current will be the last thing anyone is worried about.

    It’s a pity, as the “Agulhas Leakage” is very interesting, and well worth study.

    I feel sorry for many of these academics. They don’t have a clue, outside their particular area of expertise, and are blissfully unaware they are being used, and are also disposable-after-use, like Kleenex. If they had a clue, they would refuse to genuflect.

    I think all the colleges in Poland were closed between May, 1939 and April, 1945. I wonder, as colleges let out for the summer in 1939, if Polish professors were blissfully ignorant, and genuflecting to higher authorities, and planning their 1939-1940 curriculums, unaware there are times when higher education basically shuts down, (unless it pertains to armaments.)

  109. I did not finish this comment – pressed the wrong key!

    April 28, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    M White

    MW gave the link to Material World broadcast on Radio4 at 16:30 today UK time.

    First item from the Catlin Arctic survey this time looking at Algae that grows in ice. Amazingly no mention of MMCC

    Then the star turn Lisa Beal:

    1 Used a model to hindcast the past 50 years to show that the current was changing as a result of………..
    2 Admitted to tremendous uncertainty in the volumes of water “leaking”
    3 “This area is not studied much because it is so remote from Western Research centres”
    4 Said there was paleo evidence (but not what it was) that showed an abrupt change in the current every 100,000 years at the change from glacial to inter-glacial – but now of course it’s all our fault
    5 Said that all the models could be wrong – except the one used to make the hindcast!
    6 Neither Beal nor the idiot presenter could join up the dots

    Cheers

    Paul

  110. Just the Facts, for once I dismiss the tri cellular model that your wiki carp endorses. Buzz off.

  111. Note that the Portuguese called the Southern point of Africa the ‘Cape of Storms’.

    The British rebranded it as ‘Cape of Good Hope’, maybe as a way to allay fears amongst those fortunate souls who were shipped off to Australia.

    With the famous winelands, good surfing, and crayfish gallore, what a pain and punishment to be studying the ocean currents. How much are these ‘scientists’ being paid to work under such tremendous stressful conditions?

    Can I apply, I might just be able to learn to cope with such an ordeal!

  112. TomRude: Thanks for the link. I also took a quick look at his 2005 book “Global warming: myth or reality : the erring ways of climatology”. The title and table of contents appear interesting.

  113. TomRude says: April 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Just the Facts, for once I dismiss the tri cellular model that your wiki carp endorses. Buzz off.

    A very cogent argument indeed…

  114. There is too much guessing and speculation here. Please read the actual HTML code of the article before you comment.

    Start with the generated comments and tags around the following statement:

    “Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.”

    The underlying HTML code is as follows:

    
    <!----------------------------------------------------
     *
     * IPCC Dynamically Generated Code
     * ---------------------------------------------------
     * Code version IPCC 4.0
     * UEA CRU (C) 2004 - 2007
     * Compulsory Anthropogenic Global Warming Attribution
     * CAGWA rating: weak
     * Cause and Effect Reversal: 1 [excellent]
     * Research Grant Award Potential: 3 [possible]
     * ---------------------------------------------------
     *
    ----------------------------------------------------->
    
    
     
    <p>Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades<cagwa><weak>, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.</weak></cagwa></p> 
    
    

    You can immediately see that the CAGWA rating of the authors’ attribution to human influences of the Agulhas Current System phenomenon has been rated
    “weak” because of the unfortunate formulation “human-induced” rather than “human-caused”. The research is promising but this was an unforced error. You may notice that no member of their team has a UEA MBA in Strategic Carbon Management.

    On the other hand the authors hugely improved their research grant eligibility by reversing the cause and effect of the relationship between temperature changes and the Agulhas current.

    Their chances are not bad after all.

    You need to know how to read these things.

  115. Just The Facts says:
    April 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    “No, Boundary Currents;

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

    are subsets of Ocean Gyres;

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

    which are caused by Earth’s Rotation, not wind….

    What’s the GHC? Are you talking about the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?”

    You need to come to grips with dynamical basics instead of merely citing Wikipedia without proper sense of context. The great atmospheric and oceanic gyres are all DRIVEN by the wind. Rotation merely deflects the trajectory of motion into gyres.

    In referring to the thermohaline circulation I mistyped GHC for THC. The attribution of primary oceanic heat circulation to the THC is one of the great shibboleths of “climate science.”

  116. Did somebody hand out a list of ocean currents and recurring systems to groups of researchers, with an instruction to create a wonderful global warming paper? Just about every current and cycle has now been mentioned in the past decade as central to the problem of man-made global warming.
    Can anybody refer me to one paper that clearly shows the source of heat that causes these warmed or cooled currents to do their acrobatics? Would it not help if authors showed if heat content was conserved within their nominated system, or whether their mechanism depended upon a clearly described external heating or cooling source?

  117. Bob may I recommend “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” 2ed 2010, Springer Praxis by Leroux, his final book?

  118. sky says: April 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    You need to come to grips with dynamical basics

    Yes, I struggle with this, and expect that humans will do so for many generations into the future.

    instead of merely citing Wikipedia without proper sense of context.

    Wikipedia is just a vehicle. We have had a number of requests for tutorials, e.g:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/#comment-610048

    I am working on developing link farms to try to serve this generally informative purpose, but I agree that one must be skeptical of Wikipedia, (well as all other sources), as some of the content is suspect, but this should comes as a surprise to few.

    The great atmospheric and oceanic gyres are all DRIVEN by the wind.

    “DRIVEN” is an entrée into semantics. Wind is an equalization of pressure due to atmospheric imbalances. Solar energy, earth’s rotational energy and tidal forces are the primary “drivers” of oceanic and atmospheric gyres.

    The attribution of primary oceanic heat circulation to the THC is one of the great shibboleths of “climate science.”

    I don’t understand your use of shibboleths but I do agree that THC Thermo Haline Circulation” represents only a segment of the ocean’s circulation system. How about we call it the Rotational Gravitational Thermo Haline Circulation (RGTHC)?

  119. Just The Facts says:
    April 29, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    The basics of Newtonian dynamics are not as difficult as you suggest. The term “driven” is conventionally used to designate the factor that supplies the motive force. For ocean currents there are only the wind-stresses on the surface and the and the gravitational force acting to produce density-driven motions that, by definition, constitute the THC. There can be no THC without gravity. Shibboleth is an appropriate term when the massive ocean heat transfer poleward by the wind-driven gyres is misattributed to the orders-of-magnitude weaker adjunct of THC.

  120. sky says: April 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm
    The term “driven” is conventionally used to designate the factor that supplies the motive force.

    Yes, but wind is just a medium, like saying rivers are driven by water, versus solar energy and gravity. Or that a car’s transmission drives the wheels, versus the engine doing so.

    For ocean currents there are only the wind-stresses on the surface and the and the gravitational force acting to produce density-driven motions that, by definition, constitute the THC.

    I disagree. Earth’s rotation results in the Coriolis Effect;

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

    hence why Gyres rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Earth’s orbit around the sun results in seasons, hence the building and melting of the Polar icecaps, which helps to fuel ocean circulation. Earth’s rotation in concert with the moon’s orbit around Earth, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and the gravity of Earth, the Moon and the Sun, result in the continually evolving tidal force on Earth, which impacts circulation, e.g.:

    http://horizon.ucsd.edu/miller/download/GoA_Tides/GoA_Tides.pdf

    Shibboleth is an appropriate term when the massive ocean heat transfer poleward by the wind-driven gyres is misattributed to the orders-of-magnitude weaker adjunct of THC.

    I do not disagree that wind impacts ocean circulation (particularly surface currents) through Ekman Transport;

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

    http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm

    and Langmuir Circulation;

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

    however the energy is simply transferred, the Wind is not in and of itself a driver. Furthermore, I agree that Salinity and Temperature are likely minority factors in Ocean Circulation, however when Earth’s Gravity, the Moon’s Gravity, the Sun’s Gravity, Earth’s Rotation and Earth’s Orbit, are included, my sense is that the energy transferred to the Oceans by wind is minority factor in the overall Oceanic Circulation. How about the Gravi Ekman Rota Thermo Haline Circulation (GERTHC)?… :)

  121. Just The Facts says:
    May 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    I’ve sketched the physical basis of scientific terminology as used by physical oceanographers. You seem intent on making up your own, with scant comprehension of physical dynamics. To say that wind is merely a medium, like water in a river is to ignore the tractive forces it exerts on the ocean surface. They produce not only the major currents, but also the wind-driven sea waves. Rivers are gravity driven, as is the THC. And unlike wind-stresses, the Coriolis effect is not a real force; it cannot make pool balls roll on a flat table. It is a FICTITIOUS “force” used to explain the EFFECT of meridional differences in the rotational speed, which merely deflect the trajectory of motion in an earth-bound reference frame, in opposite directions in the two hemispheres. Instead of relying on Wikipedia, pick up an introductory text in oceanography (Dietrich wrote a good one) to comprehend what is being said here. Sorry, but I can’t take more time for tutoring.

  122. sky says: May 2, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Just The Facts says:
    May 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    To say that wind is merely a medium, like water in a river is to ignore the tractive forces it exerts on the ocean surface.

    The water in rivers exerts tractive forces on the riverbed, hence the resultant erosion, but water is still a medium. As I said earlier, semantics.

    Rivers are gravity driven

    What about solar energy/evaporation?

    And unlike wind-stresses, the Coriolis effect is not a real force; it cannot make pool balls roll on a flat table.

    You mean like this?:

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov

    It is a FICTITIOUS “force” used to explain the EFFECT of meridional differences in the rotational speed, which merely deflect the trajectory of motion in an earth-bound reference frame, in opposite directions in the two hemispheres.

    More semantics, i.e. “force” versus “effect”, as I referred to it. If the Earth wasn’t rotating then gyres wouldn’t rotate as they do, hence Earth’s rotation is a driver of oceanic gyres.

    Sorry, but I can’t take more time for tutoring.

    Your pearls of wisdom will be sorely missed…

  123. Just The Facts says:
    May 3, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    This is getting silly. The video cleary shows balls being THROWN onto a spinning platform, whereupon the trajectory is deflected, mimicking the Coriolis effect. What puts the balls into intial motion (i.e., the thrower) from a state of rest is the driver in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion. That’s not semantics, but an analytic distinction. I’m not going to waste any more time on your elementary confusions.

  124. sky says: May 4, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    This is getting silly.

    I concur.

    The video cleary shows balls being THROWN

    Yes, this is to simulate the energy imparted by the Sun, Earth’s Rotation and Earth’s Orbit and Tidal Forces.

    mimicking the Coriolis effect

    Obviously, as Wikipedia clearly states, “The Coriolis effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of the mass experiencing the effect.”

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

    In the video the rotation is caused by whoever spun the merry go round…

    What puts the balls into intial motion (i.e., the thrower) from a state of rest is the driver in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion.

    In relative to what? The ball was in motion relative to Earth before it was thrown. The point is that the rotation imparts vorticity, whether it be Planetary Vorticity or Relative Vorticity:

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter12/chapter12_01.htm

    That’s not semantics, but an analytic distinction.

    I agree, and a simple one at that. Planetary Vorticity plays an important part in Ocean Circulation, i.e.:

    “12.4 Important Concepts
    1. Vorticity strongly constrains ocean dynamics.
    2. Vorticity due to Earth’s rotation is much greater than other sources of vorticity.
    3. Taylor and Proudman showed that vertical velocity is impossible in a uniformly rotating flow. The ocean is rigid in the direction parallel to the rotation axis. Hence Ekman pumping requires that planetary vorticity vary with latitude. This explains why Sverdrup and Stommel found that realistic oceanic circulation, which is driven by Ekman pumping, requires that f vary with latitude.
    4. The curl of the wind stress adds relative vorticity to central gyres of each ocean basin. For steady state circulation in the gyre, the ocean must lose vorticity in western boundary currents.
    5. Positive wind stress curl leads to divergent flow in the Ekman layer. The ocean’s interior geostrophic circulation adjusts through a northward mass transport.
    6. Conservation of absolute vorticity in an ocean with constant density leads to the conservation of potential vorticity. Thus changes in depth in an ocean of constant density requires changes of latitude of the current.
    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter12/chapter12_04.htm

    I’m not going to waste any more time on your elementary confusions.

    Yes, maybe you should waste some time on your own…

Comments are closed.