UEA: Oceans moderate the climate
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
h/t The Register – University of East Anglia researchers have challenged the view that any planet in the Goldilocks zone (the right distance from a star so water is likely to be liquid) is likely to be habitable.
New research shows that without an ocean, and the right rate of rotation, a planet is likely to experience extremes of temperature which make it unlikely to harbour life.
From the Abstract; http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2014.1171
“The climate and, hence, potential habitability of a planet crucially depends on how its atmospheric and ocean circulation transports heat from warmer to cooler regions. However, previous studies of planetary climate have concentrated on modeling the dynamics of atmospheres, while dramatically simplifying the treatment of oceans, which neglects or misrepresents the effect of the ocean in the total heat transport. Even the majority of studies with a dynamic ocean have used a simple so-called aquaplanet that has no continental barriers, which is a configuration that dramatically changes the ocean dynamics.
Here, the significance of the response of poleward ocean heat transport to planetary rotation period is shown with a simple meridional barrier—the simplest representation of any continental configuration. The poleward ocean heat transport increases significantly as the planetary rotation period is increased. The peak heat transport more than doubles when the rotation period is increased by a factor of ten. There are also significant changes to ocean temperature at depth, with implications for the carbon cycle. There is strong agreement between the model results and a scale analysis of the governing equations. This result highlights the importance of both planetary rotation period and the ocean circulation when considering planetary habitability.”
According to Dr. David Stevens, from UEA school of mathematics;
“Mars for example is in the sun’s habitable zone, but it has no oceans – causing air temperatures to swing over a range of 100°C. Oceans help to make a planet’s climate more stable, so factoring them into climate models is vital for knowing whether the planet could develop and sustain life,”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course, It is water in all it’s states that is the “control knob” not CO2.
This is so obvious it’s surprising that it needs restating. Thought clearly it does need restating in the current avalanche of BS science getting throught peer review.
Were the basic assumptions tested with Neptune before the hypothesis was constructed? Neptune’s mantle is sometimes called a water–ammonia ocean, but still its temperatures vary between extremes of about -200 °C at 1 bar and 5,000 °C in the core.
In any case, Neptune sounds like an excellent candidate to study on planetary scale, not only heat transfer from warmer to cooler regions, but especially the practical impact of IR-absorption properties of methane (1.5 ± 0.5%). The winds accelerating close to supersonic speed should keep it’s concentration pretty constant in the local atmosphere.
Another example of a scientist producing a model to validate his own fantasies. If Earth’s oceans disappeared tomorrow, does anyone doubt that life would remain somewhere on the planet for as long as there was any moisture at all?
I’d guess water is important if you want life on a planet. Duh. Especially if the atmosphere starts out with a lot CO2 that you’d like to get out of the atmosphere. Venus could have made great use of an ocean or two. I don’t know what the seasonal range of surface temps on Venus is. Moderated by the crushing atmosphere, worsened by the slow rotation rate. I doubt it’s 100C°.
What wonderful news! Our heroes!? Surely, England will reward such useful scientists?
UEA is so expert with overall global effects and their models are so spot on accurate that UEA can step out and tell us about other worlds and what makes those exo-planets habitable or not.
Useful scientists apply their hard earned accurate knowledge of Earth’s processes to useful fields of science for the betterment of mankind here on Earth.
UEA studies are replete with direct observations, hard data and well proved algorithms and the findings are replicable and falsifiable.
I assume UEA is defending their budget requests soon?
rogerthesurf says:
July 22, 2014 at 12:56 am
————
Mars used to have an atmosphere, but lost it when it lost it’s magnetic field.
Of course how long the magnetic field lasts depends on how long the core stays fluid, which is related to mass.
jones says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:50 am
Is there any uncertainty in this?
————————-
I’m not sure.
cartoonmick says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:54 am
Our climate has always varied within acceptable ranges, but the trends away from these figures is alarming.
Really! what exactly are the trends away from “these figures” and what is alarming about them? Looks like business as usual to me.
And flat earthers? Give me a break!
cartoonmick says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:54 am
—–
In the last million years, the earth has been both several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than today.
Yet you persist on believing that a change of a few tenths of a degree puts us all at risk.
And you complain about our scientific knowledge?
The energy flux in our system is from the Sun > ocean > ocean surface > atmosphere > space.
It is the interaction of the various energy transport mechanisms at the oceans surface that dominate and control the temperature and weather.
It is hard to imagine advanced life developing without the ocean surface interface zone.
First order, i.e., climate, effects, Earth’s atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, warmed by the Sun.
Second order, cloud albedo. Third order, greenhouse effect. Fourth order, orbital mechanics. Fifth order, regional currents. Sixth order, eddy currents. Seventh order, weather. Unmeasurably small, anthropogenics.
Mick Says “But I’m damn sure they know a lot more than the collective minds of a cave full of “deniers” ; politicians, big biz, and the fruit loops.”
Well of course they know a lot more, which is why they have to work so hard to cover up what they know!
Cheers!
cartoonmick says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:54 am
Our climate has always varied within acceptable ranges, but the trends away from these figures is alarming.
____________________
I know that this isn’t your first appearance here in guise of an ignoramus troll, spewing insults. You not only threw insults at skeptics, but also linked to a cartoon inferring skeptics believe in a flat earth, neither of which were your original idea. You just showed the world that you let others do your thinking for you. You also invoked certain known logical fallacies to make your point. As further proof that you haven’t learned to think for yourself, you claim that climate signals are trending away from normal. Really? What is normal? Temperatures, sea level, whatever… all are within the known historical range. Feel free to prove that statement wrong. Find out for yourself.
Here’s another challenge for you: find one modern temperature data set which clearly shows a CO2 signal in the modern temperature record. Let’s make it easier… just go back for the last 20 years. Here’s a hint- there isn’t one. That’s right, after all the hoopla, there is not a single temperature record which clearly links the modern rise in CO2 to temperature. Don’t take my word for it, (as is your habit to do so,) find out for yourself.
You either want to find out the truth of things, or continue to exist comfortably within your shell of ignorance. A final challenge: consider that you just might not be as creative or smart as you think you are and then learn to do what it takes to improve your capacities for logic and reason. Then, you might not be so quick to publicly lash out at others and declare yourself a fool.
The retention of a planetary atmosphere depends on the mass of the planet and temperatures encountered. The mass of Mars is so low that escape velocity is low enough that H2O, H2, O2, and N2 can leak into space by a range of processes. Initial water vapor in Mars atmosphere is dissociated by UV (as in Earths upper atmosphere), so H2 is quickly lost. The O2 and N2 are more slowly lost but eventually diffuse high enough to be ionized as in our ionosphere, and are lost by high end velocity of the Maxwellian distribution exceeding escape velocity and also blown off by solar wind. CO2 is lost much more slowly, so dominates the remaining atmosphere. Water is mainly retained in underground ice formations.
Our climate has always varied within acceptable ranges, but the trends away from these figures is alarming.
=======================
20 thousand years ago much of where we live today was under a mile of ice. 8 thousand years ago the arctic was ice free. further back in time, Antarctica was ice free. Yet the change in average temperature that caused this is no more than the change in many places day to day and year to year.
there is no such thing as “acceptable ranges” in climate.
I need to add (as a previous commenter did) that the loss of Mars magnetic field was also critical to solar wind being able to remove Mars atmosphere. Earth’s magnetic field appears to be heading for a reversal soon, and will likely go to near zero for a while, but transient loss has little effect on atmosphere, it is long term average. However, the loss would affect power transmission and communication.
There is an interesting book: “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe” by Peter D Ward & Donald Brownlee which gives some insight into the conditions which may favour the development of life and complex life. Worth a read if you’ve not yet come across it.
I believe a far more important factor is a magnetic field generated by a spinning liquid iron core. Mar’s core has cooled and is solid, so it doesn’t have a magnetic shield. That is why Mars may never be inhabitable for humans! The solar wind and the Sun’s radiation continuously bombard the surface of Mars, making it as hazardous as living in space. What is the chance of developing an agriculture required to support a population. Probably small to nil. And without a magnetic shield, Mars will never be able to retain a viable atmosphere.
Earth is very unique in many ways. There are probably millions of similar planets in our galaxy. However, until we develop true space travel technology (like .8x speed of light), this discussion is only an academic exercise.
Bill
it is the mass of the atmosphere (and the distance from the Sun) that governs the global mean temperature on a planet
====================
likely gravity also plays a part. it would be interesting to see if doubling the amount of N2 in earth’s atmosphere would in theory change temperatures. according to GHG theory it should not. yet it is hard to imagine that an atmosphere nearly twice as massive would have no effect.
When one considers that all the towels produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution are probably sufficient to dry up all the world’s oceans, it’s clear that the planet is in mortal danger unless we implement a special cap-and-trade tax on towels and other instruments of mass absorption.
That’s where this is headed, so let’s get out in front of it and get us some of that taxpayer cheese.
“New research shows that without an ocean, and the right rate of rotation, a planet is likely to experience extremes of temperature which make it unlikely to harbour life as we know it.”
There, fixed it.
I hope they don’t use disgraced UEA scientists to decide on which exoplanet we should spend 10 trillion on to check it out. They would appear, along with their fellows at Hadley, to have little understanding of the earth’s climate. I’m still tee’d off that I sent 5000 containers of barbeques to UK as a speculative investment. I’ve converted them all to heaters but I’ll still take a big hit on the deal.
JohnWho says:
July 22, 2014 at 6:52 am
“New research shows that without an ocean, and the right rate of rotation, a planet is likely to experience extremes of temperature which make it unlikely to harbour life as we know it, JIM”
Fixed your fix.
More accurate to say that life as we know it on the surface of a planet is unlikely? I can easily envision life underground using the thermal mass of the rock/soil above it to even out the temperature swings, for example. sulfur vents for energy, yadda yadda. It’s not nearly as cut-and-dried as they make it out to be… they start with an assumption and disregard every possibility that disagrees with the starting premise. (hmm… sounds familiar…)
David L says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:00 am
This all presumes that life can only exist as it does on earth. Life adapts to it’s environment. Who’s to say the extent of life’s adaptability? Here on earth we find life at all extremes, from steaming pools of water, to deep ocean hydrothermal vents, to freezing arctic conditions.
—————————————————-
And you presume it to do more. We only have one example of life existing on a planet, so it is the evidence that we have. It follows that life in one area of the planet can not be segregated from another to demonstrate a range of habital planets. Your criticism applies to your comment as much as it does to the article. Talking about life on other planets is pure speculation. You happen to prefer your speculation over theirs.