From the University of New South Wales:
Small eddies produce global effects on climate change
The increasing strength of winds over the Southern Ocean has extended its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, effectively delaying the impacts of global warming.
New research published in the Journal of Physical Research found the intensifying wind over that ocean increased the speed and energy of eddies and jets, which are responsible in large part for the movement of nutrients, heat and salt across the ocean basin.
The increased movement and overturning of these eddies and jets has accelerated the carbon cycle and driven more heat into the deep ocean.
“Considering the Southern Ocean absorbs something like 60% of heat and anthropogenic CO2 that enters the ocean, this wind has a noticeable effect on global warming,” said lead author Dr Andy Hogg from the Australian National University Hub of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
“To put this in some kind of context, if those small scale eddies did not increase with wind stress then the saturation of carbon dioxide in the Southern Ocean sink would occur twice as rapidly and more heat would enter our atmosphere and sooner.”
Despite having one of the most powerful currents in the world in the form of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, eddies dominate the circulation of the Southern Ocean. Until this research, a major uncertainty around the future impacts of climate change was whether the eddy field would change with stronger winds or whether it would remain static.
Using satellite observations the study has given the first direct evidence that the Southern Ocean eddy field has increased in recent decades and that this increase can be attributed to the increase in winds around the Southern Ocean.
The intensification of winds in the Southern Ocean is a result of both the depletion of ozone and global warming’s affects on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The SAM is a measure of the position of a belt of westerly winds that circle Antarctica.
When climate scientists talk about a positive SAM it means that belt of westerlies has moved closer to the Antarctic. A negative SAM means the wind belt has moved closer to the equator. The position of the SAM can vary from year to year but the long-term trend has been for increasingly positive SAM events.
“Interestingly, we found the movement and strength of the SAM played the largest role in increasing the energy of the eddies in the Southern Ocean over periods of less than a decade but there were clear delays between the timing of the SAM and its effect on the eddies,” said Dr Hogg.
“The increase in kinetic energy of these eddies actually only became apparent a few years after a strong SAM event.”
Although the impact of SAM events over the short term was an interesting finding, it was the long-term trend over multiple decades of observations that gave a crucial indication of the changes occurring in the Southern Ocean.
“If the winds continue to increase as a result of global warming, then we will continue to see increased energy in eddies and jets that will have significant implications for the ability of the Southern Ocean to store carbon dioxide and heat,” said Dr Hogg.
“Remarkable as it seems these relatively small eddies and jets are doing the heavy lifting in the ocean driving heat into the Southern Ocean and slowing the impacts of global warming.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s remarkable how the warming since the last ice age, which peaked about 18,000 years ago, is described as 17,925 years with ONLY natural causes of the climate change and suddenly, A MIRACLE HAPPENED in 1940, with no explanation ever given by the smary warmists of how, or why, and from that year on (well it didn’t actually start warming until 1976, but what’s 36 years among friends?) all warming was caused ONLY by manmade CO2, yet all cooling (or “pauses” / hiatuses”) continue to have ONLY natural causes.
Only stupid people and leftists could believe that fairy tale (I guess “and leftists” would be redundant in that sentence!)
.
The use of the word “pause” or “hiatus” implies that the person using that word KNOWS global warming will continue.
.
In fact, no one knows when the 1850 (approximately) Modern Warming trend will end.
.
It may have ended in 1998, or the early 2000’s, or 3:36pm on March 3, 2017.
.
Anyone using the terms “pause” or “hiatus” is predicting the future — predicting that warming will continue — and when people predict the future, my advice is to do what I do:
– Plug my ears with my fingers and hum America the Beautiful until their lips stop moving (and for leftists talking about climate change, you must wait until their blood pressure returns to normal, and the steam stops coming out of their ears).
I agree with you, no prediction. Time will tell.
If you want to look at the relationship between temperature and the increase in CO2 you can do it with this graph.
It starts a little bit after your 1940 date but ahead enough of your 1976 date. The advantage of this data set for CO2 is the great reliability in measurements and availability of monthly (showing seasonal variation with photosynthesis in NH) and annual concentrations averages steadily increasing with time. The relationship is the same if you use annual concentrations instead of monthly concentrations as shown in the graph below.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
CO2 dropped from 1958 to 1979, the bottom of the ice age scare?
The tie scale on that chart is very questionable, for both CO2 and GAT
To David A:
No, CO2 did not drop see the graph from Mauna Loa below.
No the values for CO2 are not questionable. Do you know anything about the reliability of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa? A lot better than for surface temperature.
Tell me the surface temperature time series you want me to use.
I have already done CO2 vs. GISS annual. Same results.
Can’t use the RSS data, the series starts in 1979. A little to late.
Relationship? I thought you were talking causality.
Wow, just wow. This one really sent my internal BS meter rocking. The entire premise just makes no intuitive sense whatsoever.
‘intensifying wind over that ocean ‘ go on entertain me show me the historic data for these wind speeds so we can know that they have intensified’ or are we once again tip toeing in the land of model magic .
Meanwhile that this ‘research’ does prove is that is still clearly much funding to be had if your ideas support ‘the cause ‘ no matter how mad or bad that idea.
One cools his coffee by blowing on it.
Higher winds cool the ocean the same way. No?
Possible scenario:
CO2 increases causing warmth. Cloud feedback quickly negates the warming. Results: increased CO2 but NOT increased temperature.
Oh, but I’m not a holy anointed scientist so I’m to be ignored.
How long have the satellite observations of eddies been going on? How do they ‘know’ the eddies have increased since pre-1950?
They just ‘know’. Ask warrenlb.☺
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
So they say and yet Antarctic Sea Ice is on a steady increase and the Southern Ocean temperatures are on the decrease. The data not supporting their ridiculous conclusions.
From the article below
The increased movement and overturning of these eddies and jets has accelerated the carbon cycle and driven more heat into the deep ocean.
You’re looking at the same data the scientists are that arrived at these conclusions?
If not, why not. If so, why do you think you can see what they cannot?
I’m not ‘equating CO2 with heat’.
The oceans absorb roughly 90% of the heat, and also absorb CO2. Two different ideas. Comprehendo?
When did the oceans start absorbing 90% of the “heat” and what “heat”, warrenpound? You are not very clear about how this plugs the hole.
But I was under the impression that measured atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased. Now they’re claiming it’s being absorbed by the ocean?
What’s up with that?
Both are happening. Emitted CO2 goes into the atmosphere, from which some is absorbed into the oceans.
…and again warren equates CO2 with heat.
Correction, actually Warren was correctly correcting Sam, but
Salvadore says, “So they say and yet Antarctic Sea Ice is on a steady increase and the Southern Ocean temperatures are on the DECREASE. The data not supporting their ridiculous conclusions.
but from the article From the article
The increased movement and overturning of these eddies and jets has accelerated the carbon cycle and driven more heat into the deep ocean.
===============================================================
They make the same mistake Warren made earlier, assuming that because the cooler oceans uptake more CO2, they are also in taking more heat.
It is steadily increasing:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
So having moved at breathtaking speed from denying the pause to 57 flavours of it, we are now on a collision course to 101 Reasons for the Pause (and why d£ni€r$ just don’t get Thermageddon)’ I look forward to the compendium volume 1001 Carbon Excuses – why we are still going to burn and why it’s still all your fault which should arrive just about the time AR6 and 110% confidence lands on us. #Repent
Global warming originally was suppose to cause the AO to become more positive not the AAO.
Then when the AO became increasingly more negative they flipped their stance and said that due to global warming the AO will become more negative due to the fact Arctic Sea Ice values are low as a result of global warming..
If the AAO should become more negative in the future what will they say then?
In other words, atmospheric CO2 is both a cause and an effect of planetary warming.
In other words, CO2 does everything! It’s a magic gas, just like they said!
No its physics. You still think its magic.
CO2 is a result of the climate not the cause which is why it always follows the temperature.
“CO2 is a result of the climate” – what climate phenomenon is causing CO2 levels to rise?
The oceans have been warming steadily since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Warm water can hold LESS CO2 than cold.
As the oceans warm, they out-gas CO2.
But I’m no scientist so just ignore me.
Atmospheric CO2 ppmv does indeed rise due after the initial warming of the planet, amplifying the original warming caused by increased CO2 from mans burning of fossil fuels. This positive feedback effect is seen in the ice core record, and recent research has shown that about 90% of the warming during the ancient Milankovitch cycles is a result of this positive feedback.
In other words, atmospheric CO2 is both a cause and an effect of planetary warming.
Add to that CO2 caused warming increase humidity which causes more warming, the earth has spent the last 3 billion years on the edge of a knife and now we have finally tipped it over and we are all going to pay with our lives.
Warren does this sum up your understanding?
[His “understanding” ? .mod]
I agree with “Add to that CO2 caused warming increase humidity which causes more warming” , because its physics.
I do not agree with “the earth has spent the last 3 billion years on the edge of a knife and now we have finally tipped it over and we are all going to pay with our lives.” , because the physics doesn’t say that.
What do you think physics says about the feedback from water vapor to climate?
If solar cycle effects are declared regional effects in peer reviewed work based on jet stream changes in the northern hemisphere, then one would reasonably expect a southern equivalent. And neither one has anything to do with CO2.
What definition of “Southern Ocean” are they using; the Australian, or below 60S?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_ocean
If the Southern Ocean starts below 60S what do they call the 3000km bits between Africa/Australia and 60S?
so let me get this straight… the global warming caused global warming to pause…which leads to a conclusion that somehow they are more sure than ever it is all man made CO2 and it will be “worse than they thought.” hmmmmm since CO2 causes all the bad things on the planet, all CO2 must be removed form the atmosphere to make the planet “all good” of course all humans and probably everything alive on the planet will die but they will be “saving the planet.” hopefully the begin sarc/snark and end sarc/snark are not needed. Just ask if you can’t figure it out!
Cheers,
Joe
One thought I have as to why the SAM might respond in a different manner then it’s Northern counter part is unlike in the N.H. ,the polar vortex breaks down in the summer and in addition air from lower latitudes is easier entrained into the N.H. polar vortex in contrast to the isolated S.H. vortex.
Meaning when low solar conditions prevail and less ozone is created in the lower stratosphere as a whole the effects for the SAM are much greater in relationship to the lower latitudes surrounding it for ozone richer air can not be brought into the isolated Southern Polar Vortex, in contrast to the N.H. where ozone richer air can be transported into that vortex via lower latitudes. This in turn can weaken the N.H. polar vortex while no such process takes place in the S.H.
In essence Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity can have different effects upon the NAM and SAM.
As is almost always the case the S.H. and N.H act in opposite fashion to one another, due to their geography being 100 % opposite.
Along those lines a case can also be made for Milankovitch Cycles having an impact on the N.H. and thus promoting climate change for the globe regardless of the S.H.
My next post will elaborate.
One other point is the SH. and N.H. are not created equally when it comes to their response to Milankovitch Cycles.
The S.H. is set up as such , that it does not really matter if summer time insolation increases or decreases because the area of land that is entrenched in snow/ice is going to remain the same regardless of summer time insolation changes , in contrast to the N.H. where a difference in summer time insolation can cause a significant difference in the land area covered by snow/ice, thus effecting the albedo of the entire planet.
S.H. albedo remaining steady while N.H. albedo increasing due to favorable Milankovich Cycles.
rd50 March 10, 2015 at 8:49 am
“To joelobryan: …And indeed CO2 at Mauna Loa should go up and down due to photosynthesis periods in NH.The IPCC is blaming CO2 increases for temperature anomalies increases. True for a while as shown in the graph.”
“True for a while” — say what? The graph may purport to show CO2 and temp increasing during the same time period but this in no way means causality.
Did I write causality?
I wrote “The IPCC is blaming CO2 increases for temperature increases. True for a while”
In order for the IPCC to make the claim that increases in CO2 is what caused the temperature increases, during the time of increasing fossil fuels burning, they first have to show that correlation exists between the increases in CO2 and temperature increases. They NEVER did. I tried to find it, I can’t find it. Maybe somebody can help me find it.
Where would you start to prove causality or disprove causality regarding this issue? Anything else than showing a correlation between these two variables?
Indeed there was a correlation for a while as shown on the graph, maybe spurious and maybe not. With all elements (known and unknown) on the planet contributing to temperature is it possible that one particular element can increase or decrease temperature for a short period of time and other elements start (or stop) to even increase it further or decrease it? No?
All those excuses for the missing warming show, that the A in AGW gets smaller and smaller.
These excuses could just as well have made the warming up to 2000.
“The intensification of winds in the Southern Ocean is a result of both the depletion of ozone and global warming’s affects on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM).”
LOL How can global warming i.e. the diminishing of contrast between poles and equator increase winds?
So, as the SAM moves southward (cyclically or permanently?), and the winds farther south increase in speed, affecting the eddies, etc.
But, what happens a little farther north, where the SAM used to be? Isn’t it reasonable to expect that the winds up there would decrease, offsetting the effects of the increase down south?
In Economics, Frederick Bastiat said that you need to look at the unseen as well as the seen. That would seem to apply in “Climate Science” as well.
But Bastiat didn’t say look at the ‘nonexistent’.
I have never trusted that Eddie…
Never….
I don’t have access to the SAM figures at present going back 70 years but I do have access to our local wind run data from when it was first recorded here at our latitude of 40 South (the Roaring Forties no less). It shows that the wind run was lowest from 1945 to the end of the 1950’s. The wind run increased through the 60’s & 70’s & peaked in the 80’s. There was a significant drop of during the 1990’s before a slow build-up at the end of that decade. In the 40’s & 50’s La Nina’s dominated the scene. From the 60’s onwards there was a steady increase in El Nino’s with one of our worst wind years being 1982, a terrible austral spring that continued all through the summer of ’83. It would be good to compare the SAM against those figures. I suspect that during our quiet times the SAM would be mainly positive, and the Roaring Forties live up to there name when the SAM is negative.
“The positive phase of the SAM is associated with an intensification of the surface westerlies over the circumpolar ocean (around 60oS), and a weakening of the surface westerlies further north. This induces Ekman drift to the north at all longitudes of the circumpolar ocean, and Ekman drift to the south at around 30oS.”
http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/researchspotlight/spotlight-10-2004.html
So increased forcing of the climate (positive AAO) increases cold upwelling at 65°S and Ekman drift transports it towards 45°S:
http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/img/cartoon_bw.jpg
“Remarkable as it seems these relatively small eddies and jets are doing the heavy lifting in the ocean driving heat into the Southern Ocean and slowing the impacts of global warming.”
I don’t see that happening with all that cold upwelling.
And we can measure the increased energy and CO2 in the admittedly smaller area of the eddies? A multiple of the global average would make this area a significant factor and be above global uncertainty ranges.
Perhaps best described as Hogg study reveals that “Braking wind” limits global warming.
It’s obvious that the Eddies all have the last name of Haskell. They are cunning and deceptive, you know…
With the paucity of data pre-satellite; how many decades are they going back?