From YALE UNIVERSITY, another science paper that cites one of the worst ever science fiction movies. Sigh…
Study finds potential instability in Atlantic Ocean water circulation system
New Haven, Conn. – One of the world’s largest ocean circulation systems may not be as stable as today’s weather models predict, according to a new study.
In fact, changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) — the same deep-water ocean current featured in the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” — could occur quite abruptly, in geologic terms, the study says. The research appears in the Jan. 4 online edition of the journal Science Advances.
“We show that the possibility of a collapsed AMOC under global warming is hugely underestimated,” said Wei Liu, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University and lead author of the study. Liu began the research when he was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and continued it at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, prior to coming to Yale.
AMOC is responsible for carrying oceanic heat northward in the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of a lower limb of denser, colder water that flows south, and an upper limb of warm, salty water that flows north. The system is a major factor for regional climate change, affecting the Atlantic rim countries, especially those in Europe.
“In current models, AMOC is systematically biased to be in a stable regime,” Liu said. “A bias-corrected model predicts a future AMOC collapse with prominent cooling over the northern North Atlantic and neighboring areas. This has enormous implications for regional and global climate change.”
A collapse of the AMOC system, in Liu’s model, would cool the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cause a spreading of Arctic sea ice, and move tropical Atlantic rain belts farther south.
While a calamity on the order of the fictional plot of “The Day After Tomorrow” is not indicated, the researchers said a significant weather change could happen quickly in the next few centuries.
“It’s a very provocative idea,” said study co-author Zhengyu Liu, professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, and of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute. “For me it’s a 180-degree turn because I had been thinking like everyone else.”
The researchers stressed that their new model may require additional refinement, as well. They said detailed information about water salinity, ocean temperature, and melting ice — over a period of decades — is essential to the accuracy of AMOC models.
The researchers also noted the major impact that climate change itself has on AMOC patterns. Additional carbon dioxide, for example, warms the cold water of the North Atlantic. Such developments would have an impact on AMOC behavior, the researchers said.
###
Other co-authors of the study are Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Jiang Zhu of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China funded the research
I beg to differ — The Day After Tomorrow is at least an above average Science Fiction movies. It just happens to not be a very good Science Fact movie.
I beg to disagree. Politically-correct idiocy aside, any scenario that ignore the existence of 1/3 or more of the continent (Canada) can’t be much more than ‘average.’
Any model that ignores the fact that the earth rotates from West to East, and that the land keeps time much better than the water does, is doomed to make silly predictions like this story.
The tidal bulge rushing Westward across the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean or any other ocean, is going to pile water up on the eastern shores of land masses. Eventually that momentum is converted into potential energy so the maximum height reached is greater than the hydrostatic equilibrium level, so eventually that pile of water has to collapse since it can’t just roll on over the land, and when it collapses, it can only escape to the north and to the south. resulting in a gulf stream, no matter which of the 57 approved water genders the oceans grab onto.
I have always had a secret desire to reverse the rotation direction of the earth so we could have a warm water current flowing up the Pacific coast so we could fish for Dorado in Monterey Bay, and you chaps on the east coast could have some lovely salmon to eat, and have a nice cold water current flowing down to Florida from New York.
But could you give us a call when you notice the gulf stream slowing down so I can start tying up some Dorado flies.
G
http://There/are/more/people/in/the/state/of/California/alone/than/in/all/of/Canada./The/whole/country/could/slip/into/the/Bay/of/Fundy/and/for/a/month/no/one/would/know/it/was/gone./
I also beg to disagree.
Now folks, there is absolutely no possibility that the AMOC will collapse and thus cease functioning as a result of increases in global warming. An increase in global warming will probably cause it to “speed up”, but t’won’t cause it to slow down.
Now most everyone knows that north is “up” or at the “top” and that south is ”down” or at the “bottom”.
And pretty much everyone also knows that the “warm ta hot” portion of the liquid in a container will always “flow” up (north) to the top …… and that the “cool ta cold” portion of the liquid in a container will always “flow” down (south) to the bottom. Atmospheric gases do the same thingy, …. Ya know.
So, as long as it remains “hot” down south at the equator, ….. and remains “cold” up at the North Pole, …… the AMOC (aka: Gulf Stream) will be just fine.
Yours truly,
Eritas Fubar
Or one that says even though electricity generation is down because the power plants are under water, the phones underwater still work because they have a different source of electricity?
One that apparently works underwater.
I agree…enjoyable but very far-fetched. I guess that is the attraction.
Not as far fetched as this climate scientist
“It’s a very provocative idea,” said study co-author Zhengyu Liu, professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, and of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute. “For me it’s a 180-degree turn because I had been thinking like everyone else.”
Could it be possible that the “Day After Tomorrow” is much more likely than the above quote?
I don’t believe he was” thinking like everyone else”.
If these scientists are consistently discovering that the predictions based on the initial conjecture were incorrect and that the new predictions are “worse than we thought”, doesn’t that invalidate the conjecture? How can we be expected to believe the revised predictions? Perhaps in a few years time, these same scientists will discover that things are “better than we thought”. My head is starting to spin! I suggest they take their time, stop making predictions for a while and wait until they can confidently declare that “Things are exactly as we thought”.
I strongly suspect the only people reading this crap (besides us, uninvited!) are fellow “climate scientists.”
And Yale is about to be under water–the flooding tide of Speshul Snowflake undergrads trying to rewrite all of human history. I’d send a kid to truck-driving school before Yale these days.
Is that the one where they burn books in the library to keep warm?
Only the law and economics books.
Who was the facility manager that left a flue of that size open to leak air from a public building?
Notice also sea level rise affected New York only.
Yes, because they were literally persecuted by what looked like sentient cold though the corridors and had to lock themselves at a room.
P.S.: I like Emmerich’s movies, they are funny – and intentionally so, I think. However, The Day After Tomorrow is one of his minor works, his Magna Opus is 2012. 😉
They burned books in a library filled with wooden furniture because they had “no choice.” That is well inside the deep hurting zone.
OMG! Don’t burn books!! The EPA and PM2.5 police will be all over you!
I don’t remember the name of the movie, but at one point the protagonists had taken shelter in a bank, and they burned the money to stay warm.
I have to say it…
” prominent cooling over the northern North Atlantic and neighboring areas. ”
“Additional carbon dioxide, for example, warms the cold water of the North Atlantic”
“The researchers stressed that their new model may require additional refinement, as well. ”
“The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China funded the research”
Do the funders ever audit what they pay for?
The researchers stressed that their new model may require additional refinement, as well
Send more money please. These guys are getting desperate.
I wonder how CO2 warms the water. I always thought that the sun was what warmed the water. I’ll have to do a 180-degree turn.
So the model might require additional refinement?
Can’t be climate science then, that’s already settled!
Perhaps someone ought to actually PROVE that rather than just stating it happens.
Like, I mean, do a lab test with an IR lamp and a well ventilated body of water.
We know that incident IR will heat a solid black body, but water can evaporate and IR only penetrates a few microns thus only affecting the likelihood of evaporation.
When the water warms, the ice melts. This means that the ocean water can loose heat to space much more easily. It’s gonna take a lot more CO2 than we are ever going to produce to over come that negative feedback.
Phillip, if the air is warmer, than the oceans have to warm up by the same amount in order to continue losing that heat to the air.
Why would they audit something that was pre-ordained in the first place?
The oceans lose energy by thermal radiation, irregardless of what the air temperature is. The air doesn’t do a whole lot of thermal radiation. The density is too low to be even approximately black body like. Remember a black body absorbs all radiation so you can’t see through it. We can see all the way through the entire atmosphere, and not even notice it is there.
G
George, are you arguing that since we can see through the atmosphere that therefore the atmosphere is also transparent to IR?
The sun warms the water. The water warms the air. Some water evaporates. The CO2 delays air cooling down and keeps water vapour up. Water vapour prevents water from cooling down as fast as it used to be. Spatial-temporal-avg water temp up, avg air temp up.
That’s the theory. How the world works might be different.
For example, the vapour might make clouds that change the picture totally.
Above average? I guess there’s no accounting for taste, is there? 🙂
How many careless or stupid readers of the sentence “the same deep-water ocean current featured in the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” — could occur quite abruptly, in geologic terms,” will go home scared, like I used to do from my elementary school after those nuclear attack survival drills we had to do in the 60s? Of course, in my defense, I was 6 years old and in the 1st grade. Now we have many poor babies 18 or 20 years old, masquerading as students at major universities, more scared by climate than I was by the threat of nuclear war and who were never taught what “in geologic terms” means.
Indeed, there are a lot of Sci-Fi movies that are much worse, such as those detailed in the work of Robinson, Crow, Servo, and Nelson.
Climate science is chock full of urban legends. Urban legend theories are theories (mechanisms) which are repeated when there is obvious data and logic that supports the assertion that the theories in question are completely incorrect, not part of the solution.
Something is rotten in climate science when data and analysis that contradicts a ‘theory’ is ignored.
1. The discrete thermal halone ocean conveyor theory has been proven incorrect by ocean float data. The discrete thermal halone conveyor started with a picture that Wally Broeker published without proof in a paper. Ocean float data shows only 8% of the flow in the North Atlantic follows the Broeker conveyor path. Therefore changes in the fresh water flow cannot interrupt the North Atlantic drift current and changes in the North Atlantic drift current do not affect ocean current flow in the Southern Hemisphere.
2. Basic analysis shows the heat transferred by the North Atlantic drift current is three times less than the heat that is transfer from summer warming of the North Atlantic ocean. A complete interruption to the North Atlantic drift current therefore cannot cause the cyclic warming and cooling of Europe and Greenland Ice sheet.
3. There is in the paleo record warming and cooling in the Southern Hemisphere that is simultaneous with the warming and cooling in the North hemisphere. If ocean currents where the cause of the warming there would be roughly a 1000 year lag.
4. When the Southern hemisphere, the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Northern hemisphere warm, the Antarctic ice cools. This phenomenon is called confusingly the Polar see-saw (see Svensmark’s attached paper, I will link to Svensmark’s paper in another comment.). The Antarctic ice sheet cools as the albedo of that ice sheet is greater than the albedo of clouds. Therefore, an increase in cloud cover over the Antarctic causes warming of that ice sheet rather than cooling. The albedo of the Greenland ice sheet is low than the Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet is not isolated by a polar vortex and hence unlike the Antarctic ice sheet follows the temperature of the surround ocean.
5. The cyclic warming and cooling of the Southern and Northern hemisphere correlates with solar cycle changes. Solar cycle changes are the cause of the cyclic warming and cooling.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
The discovery of cyclic abrupt climate change and the urban legends that were created to try to explain cyclic abrupt climate change. The following is additional information concerning this interesting subject.
The following is the Antarctic ice core analysis that shows how the earth’s temperature in the last 420,000 years has changed.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
The resolution of ice sheet, ice core data analysis is dependent on the amount of yearly snowfall in the region in question. Due to the extreme cold on the Antarctic ice sheet and the fact that the Antarctic ice sheet is isolated from the Southern sea weather systems by an extremely strong and persistent polar vortex, the yearly snowfall on the Antarctic ice sheet is very small as compared to the snowfall on the Greenland ice sheet.
The Antarctic ice sheet, ice core proxy data therefore drastically smooths the cyclic temperature change on the earth and does not show the magnitude of the temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere and misses some of temperature changes in Southern Sea due to strong Antarctic Polar vortex.
This is the Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures in the Last 100,000 years and for the last 11,000 years.
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The big surprise when the first Greenland Ice core data was analyzed was the discovery of cyclic abrupt climate change which is not shown in the Antarctic ice sheet data.
As there was and still is no known mechanism that can cyclically abrupt change the earth’s climate and the first Greenland ice core was distorted due to past ice flow movement where the core was taken from, a second Greenland ice core was drilled 30 miles from the first, at a location which is at the top of a small mountain range where there is no ice movement.
The second Greenland ice core analysis confirmed the first Greenland ice core analysis.
Something causes the planet to abruptly warm and cool. It is known that solar cycle changes correlate with the cyclic abrupt climate change and that there are abrupt geomagnetic field changes which also correlate with cyclic abrupt climate changes.
The cyclic abrupt geomagnetic field changes currently also do not have an explanation.
The largest cooling event is the 12,900 year ago abrupt cooling event which is called the Younger Dryas cooling event. At that time the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. The Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event lasted for 1200 years at which time the planet returned to interglacial warm.
The Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event occurred when solar insolation at 65N was maximum which is one of roughly a dozen different observations that supports the assertion the glacial/interglacial cycle is not caused by changes in solar insolation at 65N.
Milankovitch’s theory is also an urban legend, not part of the solution as to what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, the milder cyclic warming and cooling cycles, and what cause the Younger Dryas type cyclic abrupt climate change events.
Initially paleo climatologists appealed to an interruption to the North Atlantic drift current as the cause of the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
The interruption to North Atlantic drift current theory was proven to be incorrect as it was found that there was a massive flow of fresh water that occurred a 1000 years before the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event (there was some initial errors in the dating of the two events which was one of the reasons as to why the interruption to the North Atlantic drift current urban legend got started).
There was no cooling at the time of the massive flow of fresh water which disproves the hypothesis that a flow of fresh water will interrupt the North Atlantic drift current and supports the assertion that even if there was an interruption to the North Atlantic drift current there would be a relatively small change in Northern Hemisphere temperature as the heating due to drift current is three times small than the amount of heat that is released in the winter from the solar heating of North Atlantic in the summer. (See paper link in my above comment.)
All of the cyclic temperature changes have the same periodicity. As the periodicity of the cyclic change is the same during both glacial and interglacial cycles and is very stable this indicates the cause of the cyclic warming and cooling is ‘outside of the Earth system(s)’.
There is solar cycle caused isotope changes in the ice cores and in the ocean floor sediments that correlate with the warming and cooling. There are more than a dozen independent observations and analysis result that support the assertion that solar cycle changes are causing the cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record.
The unanswered question is how does the sun change cyclically to cause what is observed?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
The same periodicity of temperature change is also found in the Southern hemisphere. The following is a summary of the analysis of the Antarctic Peninsula ice core data. As the Antarctic Peninsula extends outside of the Antarctic polar vortex it captures of the temperature of Southern sea. The Southern Sea warms and cools with the same periodicity as the temperature changes in the Northern hemisphere.
The finding that both hemispheres are warming and cooling with the same periodicity supports the assertion that what causes the cyclic warming and cooling affects the entire planet with most of the cooling and warming occurring at high latitudes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
Wow, that is great stuff. I have never heard anyone suggest that the gulf stream was not the source of Europe’s mild winters. However, these papers you cite do seem to explain things well.
Jeff, Seattle also has mild winters. It’s about the same latitude as Britain, but there is no Gulf Stream in the Pacific.
Having never seen it I can’t judge the quality of the move, but having seen many clips from it, it doesn’t appear to have much to do with science at all whether based of fact or fiction. To be called science fiction there should be at least some resemblance to real science.
worst ever science fiction movies. Nowhere even close. Still ballone of course
most of the ‘man-made’ global warming movies which came out over the last ten years were definitely far worse.
‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ is generally reckoned to be the world worst science fiction movie, so bad it has cult status.
I always wondered about Plans 1 though 8 ….
Anything with Bela Lugosi is a classic in my eyes!
Although I hesitate to differ with you I do think that “The Thing With Two Heads” has a rather unique awfulness all of its own…… Just a view of course…
They had denialist plots and had their funding cut.
So that’s where he got his hairstyle from.
“tony mcleod January 4, 2017 at 10:55 pm”
In some kind of “pot” of hair cream? Like where you get your “science”?
Did Al Gore star in that one?
The best ever sci-fi movie is the one about the giant crystals that grow when it gets wet, until it collapses and falls over; shattering and launching a new wave of growing crystals that can climb over any barrier.
G
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes…
How about “Attack of the fifty foot woman”
Has to be buckaroo banzai for me; so bad it was hilarious.
I think their quote should be
It’s hard to take any of these papers serious….in another few years they will correct the current biases…
…and this paper will be trash too
“bias-corrected model predicts ”
The hierarchy of lies in descending order:
lies
damned lies
statistics
spreadsheets
computer models
bias-corrected models
Well said, that man!
Add “Spurious Externalities”
Say what?
What.
+1
These kids know where the big money comes from (gov’t) and are anxious to get a piece of the action.
‘significant weather change could happen quickly in the next few centuries.’ – I guess ‘in geologic terms’ that is pretty abrupt.
But I will BET we will adapt to it easily. As will many (most) other species who have also seen all of this before.
Climate Otter, your previous Griff takedown concerning Susan Crawford ranks as THE all time blog great riposte. Highest regards.
Susan Crockford.
A “significant weather change” can happen in 3, 2, 1 seconds. Trust me, I’ve seen it happen.
I do not know what a “few centuries” means, but I do not expect to be around.
When I’ve said something inappropriate, the weather around my wife can change even quicker than that.
Quickly in geologic terms means thousands to hundreds of thousands.
“…“A bias-corrected model predicts a future AMOC collapse with prominent cooling over the northern North Atlantic ”
Here we go again. What bias corrections? they have merely introduced biases to manipulate a model to give them an answer they want. This is not junk science it is total-rubbish-science.
Rubbish could be turned into compost, bio fuel, or, as a last-last resort, macrame. This paper is not up to that standard. It doesn’t make the cut for rubbish.
They used one of them bias corrections to get rid of sea level stagnancy and another for the Pause, too. The science is settled and the debate is over, yet they admit it was full of biases! Look at the names of the authors and the funding which included the PRC. Maybe Trump was right- it’s a Chinese hoax we’re experiencing er… Sarc.
I note they use the term climate change from CO2 entering the North Atlantic causing serious cooling tho’. Is this what they have in store for us for the future. I won’t likely survive another 60yr cycle so we can go thru the next big cooling alarm with new sceptics. That might be how they keep it going. They even say that 1970s cooling alarm was a myth so they can do the same with old global warming.
Down the memory hole…
“The researchers said a significant weather change could happen quickly in the next few centuries”
Boy that’s really sticking your predictive neck out. Care to narrow it down a bit?
Narrow it down? How about Nov 5th, 2132. About lunch time, say quarter past 1.
Does that help any? ^¿^
Drain the Swamp!
People will kick themselves when it is revealed that the whole thing is one exaggerated fantasy fuelling even more exaggeration and fantasy. This makes it all seem too apacalyptic, requiring even mnore exaggeration to make people believe the earlier exaggerated fantasies. The entire thing has gone beyond rediculous.
We have all had to contend with habitual liars- a lie to support a lie, to support a lie. Eventually, you pick an outright lie, an inconsistency or something that is just too fanciful to believe. The penny has dropped- everything the liar has told you was a load of baloney. What do you feel like saying? “Please explain.”
When Senator Hanson in Australia says those immortal words, she exposing yet another litany of lies, another group that has no crdibility. People seem to be immune to being woken up because we have nothing but half truth from the mainstream media-we have become immune to the truth!
It is a bit like Minties- those sticky lollies in Australia that routinely pull out the fillings in teeth. They even look like a melted down BS meter. The slogan “Have a Minties moment” could read “Have a please explain moment”- anothe piece of Political correctness BS busted as a load of garbage. If the climate claims seem too cataclysmic to be true, they probably are- bit like internet scams-if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Here are some of the labels for Minties please explain edition- UN declares the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to NOT be a Jewish Holy site- please explain. Former UN Human rights comissioner, Navi Pillay declaring that Israel should be up for human rights charges because they do not share their Iron Dome technology with Hamas- please explain. IPCC chief, Christiana Figuerres stating that Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model. UN obviously is OK for the iron fist of totalitarianism to combat a non-existent “problem” that they are raking in trillions to “combat.” please explain. Safe schools co-founder, Roz Ward admitting that the safe schools program is not about stopping bullying, but about promoting alternate sexuality. Politicians that still support this propaganda- please explain. The Australian Greens supporting the so-called “anti-fascist” groups who behave just like Nazi Brownshirts-please explain. We all have our favourite “please explain” moments of political correctness gone too far to be believable. Why does mainstream media report such blatant BS. Please explain.
Well, as best I can tell, a group of ruthless hyper-wealthy control freaks bought up the mass media, and a stable of ethically challenged politicons and acedemons, and therewith attempted to propagandize the world into going along with elitist global governance, under their thumbs.
Perhaps if these sorts of papers had to be set to music, we’d get more enjoyment from them. Gilbert & Sullivan spring to my mind for a suitable style.
I am the very model of a modern major general.
Remember these words:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989
And this:
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair, 1994
+ a bunch
yes…..and these are the kinds of scientists in the 97%
And it goes and goes and goes .. viral.
Misquotations should be punished.
Houghton said: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accide”
Source: http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html
And the citation of Schneider (RIP) is followed by: ” I hope that means being both.”
Don’t ever trust quotes that you don’t ripped out of the context by yourself (or even fabricated by yourself)
I prefer The Arrival (from 1996) myself:
“Zane discovers the plant doubles as a front for an underground alien base. The very different looking aliens are able to disguise themselves with an external skin to infiltrate human society. Zane finds that all of the bases expel large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.”
The “bias” they corrected was a bias toward what is presently observed to occur. I note no indication of any observations to justify changing this “bias”. So the change was simply pulled out of the nether regions of their fundament. The entire exercise is simply saying “if” the AMOC were to fail yata yata yata. And if a frog had wings it would not bump its ass so much, as well. Stupidity on steroids in the world of what is called climate “science”. Tax dollars paid for this? That’s the real problem.
New Haven, Conn. – One of the world’s largest ocean circulation systems may not be as stable as today’s weather models predict, according to a new study.
No way.
A model that may not be accurate as they though…
huh, who’dathunk?
Yes, that one sentence shows these “scientists” for the useless flunkies that they are.
Sorry, I was attempting to reply to Crispin just below.
“Additional carbon dioxide, for example, warms the cold water of the North Atlantic.”
How?
I noticed the same.
What a load!
Makes one wonder why CO2 doesn’t “warm the warm water of the South Atlantic” in addition to the “cold water of the North Atlantic.”
They must never read their own stuff.
Because ‘everyone knows’ CO2 warms the oceans, air, land, what have you. CO2 is a pollutant, so they just put it in the modelling study because it’s another one of those ‘Everyone Knows’ studies.
When the air warms, the water has to warm by a similar amount in order to lose the heat being put into it by the sun.
The reality is that the radiant greenhouse effect, upon which the AGW conjecture depends, has not been observed in any real greenhouse, anywhere on Earth, or anywhere in the solar system. It is nothing but science fiction making the AGW conjecture nothing but science fiction too. It is the heat capacity of the atmophsere combined with the force of gravity that creates a convective greenhouse effect that, as derived from first principals, keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer because of the atmosphere. 33 degrees C is what has been calculated and 33 degres C is what has been observed. Additional warmth caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. Hence all papers supportive of the AGW conjecture must all be regarded as some form of science ficition. I think that it is appropriate for works of science fiction to reference other works of science fiction as long as we realize that such is all just science fiction. May you live long and prosper.
“In current models, AMOC is systematically biased to be in a stable regime,” Liu said.
“Ooh! Let’s make it unstable and see what happens!” This is like poking the exposed brain with a probe to see which limb jumps.
I like the concept of stability bias, though.
This Liu should apply for Curry’s job, perfect credentials…/sarc
Notwithstanding that glaciation will be a case of extreme global warming…
Yep when you can’t make it stick, try the opposite… There is still a chance Liu will go another 180-degree, LOL
To them it’s like a dance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luDklth_mbM
Its another useful reminder that in climate ‘science’ you really can get away with producing any old sh*t , has long as it supports the cause it simply does not matter if it lacks any academic validity.
So there has to be evidence that it happened before when the region was warmer right?
Nice to see that someone has been reading my repeated posts about the nonlinear instability of the AMOC. Here it is again:
The positive feedback loop of salinity-downwelling-Greenland ice melt gives the AMOC its chaotic bistability. The AMOC and Gulf Stream are driven by the salinity-downwelling positive feedback. The Gulf Stream brings high salinity water to the North Atlantic. When it cools its higher salinity makes it exceptionally dense so that it downwells all the way down to the ocean floor. This is the deep water formation in the far North Atlantic (OK Bill it’s not the Norwegian Sea). This deep cold dense water flows south, completing the loop of the AMOC. By doing so it in turn propels the northward Gulf Stream up on the surface, reinforcing the whole circuit with positive feedback. This feedback-reinforced AMOC considerably warms North West Europe and transports warmer water right up to the Arctic.
In the paradigm of current climate science this positive feedback at the heart of the AMOC would be assumed to be runaway and would soon be expected (projected) to turn the Atlantic Ocean into a whirling maelstrom like a washing machine. However in the real world of complex systems positive feedback does not do this, instead it causes oscillation and intermittency. Each “run” of the positive feedback causes eventually a negative feedback, which cuts it off. In the North Atlantic the negative feedback that cuts off the Gulf and cold downwelling feedback – which warms the Atlantic high latitudes – is Greenland ice melt and a resulting freshwater pulse, which chokes off the cold water formation and downwelling.
What results from these intermittent pulses or chaotic oscillations of the AMOC is what we call the AMO. This gives a chaotic instability to the whole NH climate.
By contrast in the SH there is no such instability, there is no meridionally bounded ocean south of Africa and South America. In the Southern Ocean you have the unimpeded circumpolar circulation. Thus no salinity feedback driving meridional current loops. Thus in the SH both oceanography and climate are much more stable and changes occur more smoothly over much longer timescales. This gives a reciprocating interplay of climate change between the two hemispheres.
We just had a long discussion about this a few threads ago and I have no idea why you did not learn anything from that. THE SEA ICE is where everything starts.
The AMOC is not driven by the Gulf Stream and Greenland ice-melt has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Agree Fully!
I missed that discussion of a few threads ago.
If I was asked to explain the Gulf Stream I likely would start with the Northeast Trades, an enclosed Gulf of Mexico, and the rotating Earth.
The image below indicates the Gulf Stream dissipates south of the Island of Newfoundland.
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/gulf300_big.gif
Bill
What I am saying about AMOC – that the northeast flowing Gulf Stream is linked by simple mass balance to south flowing deep water – is not only my idea but has been the conventional understanding of AMOC for years. That is what is implied in its name “overturning”. In your post you argue that downwelling is not located in the Norwegian sea but somewhere else in the Arctic and I acknowledged this, even spelling your name right.
Here are the comments you made in the previous Wim Rost thread about ocean heat capacity and circulation as a climate driver:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/26/warming-by-less-upwelling-of-cold-ocean-water/#comment-2383327
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/26/warming-by-less-upwelling-of-cold-ocean-water/#comment-2386556
The “brinicle” video that you refer to – a popular BBC video showing a supercooled “river of death” sinking a few yards from the underside of Antarctic ice and freezing a few unlucky starfish, is simply an illustration that very cold and hypersaline water does indeed sink.
If you dispute the existence of the AMOC please make it clear that you are doing so. This is conventional oceanography and nothing to do with CAGW theory.
My point about the nonlinear instability of the AMOC and the salinity feedback are also taken from the extensive literature literature on the subject (I’ll post some refs later if I have time). Folks don’t like hearing about ocean circulation and internal chaotic instability and oscillations thereof since this steals the thunder from simplistic ideas of climate being driven externally by everyone’s pet factor, whether this is CO2, sun and moon cycles, planet orbits or the palm lines in Al Gore’s hands.
Quote
The AMOC and Gulf Stream are driven by the salinity-downwelling positive feedback.
Unquote
No it is not, its driven by the earths rotation. Salinity only effects the local area, where it finally plunges, along with temperature. I.E it only affects only the marginal position of the transition layer.
The feedback of salinity and deep water formation driving THC in both the Pacific and Atlantic is described in these papers:
http://uspest.org/ipm/len/Okazaki_etal_2010_Science_NPDW_Suppl.pdf
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/36/12/991.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/nature07717.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4280.1
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20584.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044474/full
this is just the first page of Google Scholar results, there are hundreds more.
You are right that earth’s rotation is a factor in THC. This was first shown by Stommel in 1953 and is referred to as the Stommel circulation. It does not affect my original point at all.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Abyssal-circulation/more/even-more/stommel-arons-1960-II.pdf
The Gulf Stream is actually driven by surface winds (and then confined by the continental shelf that is at least 200 metres deep).
It is driven across the Atlantic from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico by the Trade Winds. It is then runs up to the 200 metre depth continental shelf of South America, moves into the Gulf of Mexico, is squeezed along Florida into the North Atlantic. The water is constantly flowing in and it has to keep flowing out.
It then picks up the winds now moving south-west to north-east flowing off of North America and this drives it all the way back across the Atlantic to the north side of Europe. Then the winds force it into the Arctic ocean.
The Gulf Stream is always going to flow as long as the Earth is rotating, setting up a certain pattern of winds and confined by continental margins.
Has the Earth changed its rotation. Did the continents move. Did the winds slow down. No salt was involved in this story whatsoever.
Cold water is sinking in the arctic. Something has to replace that water at the surface.
There is no one single factor that drives the ocean circulations.
Bill,
Thanks for finally bringing up the direct cause of the Gulf Stream. It is a wind driven current in geostrophic balance. even if the amok were to shut down you would still have a gulf stream. I also like that people are popping the silly BS about the Gulf stream warming England. The AMOC is still an area of physical oceanography research. The mass balance equation has yet to be written for it. There is a lot of unknowns about large scale water movements, I sincerely doubt this new paper includes any actual physical oceanographers in the authorship.
David
Wind only mixes ocean water down to the thermocline. Below that, only deep water formation causes movement or “ventilation”. That’s why during the Mesozoic with much warmer climate and no ice caps, ventilation was weaker and parts of the deep ocean were anoxic. Currently the ocean depths are oxygenated, thanks to deep water formation, not wind.
The Gulf Stream starts here. It is driven by the equatorial Trade Winds just like the ENSO is.
?w=600&h=364
It then runs up against the continental shelf of South America and is forced northward into the Gulf of Mexico where it often does a “loop” (because the ocean depth is just deep enough here to allow a loop to set up) and then it keeps going around Florida squeezed between the Florida coast and the Bahamas shallows.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/loopcurrent-large.gif
And then it gets into the North Atlantic and continuing to be driven the winds which now shift to the west-east mid-latitude winds, goes all the way up to; well actually Siberia. It does NOT sink until probably one year later after it becomes thick sea ice somewhere close to Siberia.
It is exactly like the Kuroshio Current in the north Pacific which is also driven by the winds.
A person could go on and on here, but I have done it too many times before.
The Gulf Stream starts here Next to AFRICA. (fixing the link).
Bill
I don’t disagree with anything that you describe here. Yes wind blows ocean currents. I’m only saying that the converse is also true, ocean dynamics cause wind, due to temperature and pressure gradients. Causality is bidirectional and the oceans are not passive.
Ptolemy2,
Upwelling and mixing cross the thermocline/pycnocline/halocline all the time. It is a conditional thing, has nothing to do with the AMOC other than possible outlets for the moving water as you say. My point and Bills is that wind drives the surface currents, which will not change regardless of the downwellling. Large scale wind patterns have more to do with rotation of the earth, latitude and the sun, rather than than ocean dynamics, Anyway these things are pretty complex and understood in a theoretical sense that does not quite match reality, hence there is still a lot of research into how it all really works.
Greenland isn’t melting. If it did, the fresh water goes into the sea just like most of the icebergs: the Baffin Island side.
The ‘fresh water pulse’ idea is great science fiction. It cannot happen fast enough to do anything to turn off the circulation. In fact the return trip along the ocean floor was shown (measurements and all that) to be increasing in speed, not slowing.
On the other hand if the Gulf Stream swung west to warm Newfoundland all the ice would melt off Greenland and the climate would become temperate. I expect that is the eventual result if the new ice age is somehow avoided.
Yes it would flood Florida and parts of Georgia. Who cares? Turn it into a snorkling park and charge admission.
There is an uptick in Greenland ice melt but it is not necessarily anything to do with AGW. It is just the cyclical response to an excursion of the AMOC. That’s the point. Then the AMOC will decrease, it gets colder, then the melt will decrease and the AMOC will strengthen again, it gets warmer, then the melt increases again etc… Its the AMO.
It is cool that the tide seems to be turning.
One group gets paid to produce a model and another gets paid to refute it? Can I get in on this??
“For me it’s a 180-degree turn because I had been thinking like everyone else.”
Earth to Liu: you still are.
Note that all this paper’s aurhors are of Chinese origin. Proving Trump’s tweet that CAGW is a Chinese fabrication to hobble US industry. Worse than the Russian hack of DNC/Podesta?
You all figure out what degree of sarc is merited by this possibly trenchant observation.
You did notice the $Money$ note at the bottom? Right?
“The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China funded the research”
No sarc required. Right there in black and white!
pbh
So Trump was right?! The whole thing is a Chinese hoax!
Glad we took care of that. On to Hillary’s underwear…
I stopped reading at the first mention of the word ‘model’.
This is NOT science. It’s mere speculation cloaked in caveats and models. Bugs the hell outta me.
Climate science has no clue to how the AMOC actually operates. There is no reason to take any of this seriously.
Why has nobody noticed that these guys are running AMOC on their computers?
That’s very funny. You get a gold star.
That IS funny 😆
We do have evidence from the ice cores that there are very abrupt temperature swings such as the Younger Dryas.
Changes in the AMO would be a good candidate for triggering such an event. I’m hard pressed to think of anything else that could generate the sharp changes recorded. So the Yale paper should not be simply dismissed.
Would you entertain the idea of comet showers as a possible explanation for Younger Dryas? Dr, W.M. Napier and my book “Sudden Cold”?
The Gulf Stream needs to have about 200 metres depth of ocean to flow properly. That means there are periods in the ice ages when it does not flow into the Gulf of Mexico and around Florida and then into the North Atlantic, but it actually flows all the way around the Carribean Islands instead.
This changes how much warm water flows directly into the North Atlantic versus just dissipates in a normal Atlantic Gyre.
When sea level falls by about 80 metres versus today in the ice ages, the Gulf Stream changes course and the far North Atlantic cools off. The Ocean currents mean far more than is thought.
Bill its the fact there would have to have been a drop in sea levels to effect the Gulf Stream.ls what clearly suggests that any change in the Gulf Stream was an effect of the ice age and not the cause of it. Because to have dropped the sea level by 80 metres then clearly the ice age must have been well in place by then.
A lot of snow was getting dumped on N America well before there was any change to the Gulf Stream.
I did a drawing of the concept awhile ago, here it is.
This is sea level during the last glacial maximum and one can see there is just not depth in the Gulf of Mexico and next to Florida for a big ocean current like the Gulf Stream to flow through here. In addition, the Caribbean Islands are larger and there are more of them above sea level and the Gulf Stream just does not get in there.
“They said detailed information about water salinity, ocean temperature, and melting ice — over a period of decades — is essential to the accuracy of AMOC models.”
WR: Correct. Without detailed and accurate data about the key factors of the oceans (salinity, temperature and water movement) we never can make any prediction about a future climate. No one can. We can only guess.
It can’t collapse, it can only reach a stable equilibrium. If the polar regions get colder due to less warm current, then it creates a bigger differential in temperature, thus encouraging conditions to speed up the current again. If the polar regions get too hot from the current, the current slows and pours less heat into the region, thus cooling it.
Another factor is ice. When the area cools off, ice forms which slows the transfer of heat from the water to the oceans, which means the waters don’t cool as much.
When the waters warm, the ice melts, which means more heat moves from the water to the air, which cools the water.
Whatever you choose to call it AMOC , or THC (Thermohaline Ocean Circulation), according to Oceanographer Dr. Carl Wunsch, it is a “myth”. It keeps cropping up though in attempts to explain the Younger Dryas, and of course now another significant climate change.
Unfortunately, these THC-induced delusions are now legal in several states.
+ 1, no actually plus many, LOL
Science fiction just in: ABC News 24 Hr (Australia), 2016 hottest year evah!
“…and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China funded the research”
_——————
See, Trump was right!
Stealing money, these ‘researchers’ are stealing money…how do I get me a job stealing money?
What a joke…
Both the PDO and AMO will be in their respective 30-yr cool cycles from 2019, which will lead to cooling global temps.
Moreover, the weakest solar cycle since 1790 starts in 2021 and the one following that will likely be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum started in 1645, and the start of another Grand Solar Minimum event, which will last 50~100 years..
The disparity between CAGW’s doom and gloom global warming predictions vs. reality are already large and long enough to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis… When the above cooling factors occur, the disparity and duration will continue to increase, making CAGW untenable.
As a way to counter this reality, CAGW advocates are coming up with silly “global warming causes global cooling” excuses to site when the inevitable cooling occurs, and CAGW is officially able to be disconfirmed under the rules of the scientific method.
How long with the CAGW hoa-x continue???
And so it goes….until it doesn’t…
Go look at this link – Gulf Stream is well highlighted in red:
“cause a spreading of Arctic sea ice”
Wouldn’t that be a good thing if the melting of the arctic sea ice is a bad thing?
Congratulations. These guys have just hindcasted the Little Ice Age. I believe the planet recovered quite nicely from that event, thank you.
‘Worse than we thought…’
Oh noes….just how much badderer can it get?
With access to tertiary studies increasingly being restricted to bona fide members of various ‘disadvantaged’ minority groups, rather than on a merit basis, plus a very slanted approach to research funding, we can only look forward to more off-center dissertations from our new wave academics.
Not long before we get a paper from someone being awarded a PhD for classifying the various fairies they have identified at the bottom of their garden.
The planet is rotating with 70 some odd percent of water sloshing around on it and they think the currents are going to stop? They would also have to believe that the winds would somehow stop – which means no more day/night cycles to create convection currents.
“The researchers stressed that their new model may require additional refinement, as well. They said detailed information about water salinity, ocean temperature, and melting ice — over a period of decades — is essential to the accuracy of AMOC models.”
No, someone should take their little toy away from them so they can start observing the real world.
While the Earth rotates in the same direction and the continents are in the same place the major N. Atlantic currents (gulf & N.A. drift) will be there, cometh the CAGW or the new Ice Age.
What is changing is the latitude of the N. A. down-welling area, drifting further north during warming periods or going back south when the warming period is over, with periodicity of about 60 years. From this graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOq1.gif
assuming the data is good enough (within the reason), it can be seen that the N. Atlantic SST values (from which the AMO is derived) are virtually repeated with an uplift of 0.2C.
The AMOC carries heat from the equator to the pole. Not only that, it is driven by the temperature difference between equatorial waters and the polar ocean. The only way the flow can stop is by a physical barrier or by the temperature difference disappearing. How the latter will happen in a warming world is a mystery to anyone with an understanding of thermodynamics. It would fly in the face of everything we know about heat transfer.
If CO2 does warm the planet, it will warm the poles the most. This is because water is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 is just a bit player.
In regions where there is lots of water in the air, such as the tropics, more CO2 makes little to no difference.
However, at the poles, CO2 will have a much larger impact, because there is little water vapor in the air up there.
“A collapse of the AMOC system, in Liu’s model, would cool the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cause a spreading of Arctic sea ice, and move tropical Atlantic rain belts farther south.”
This certainty hasn’t been happening since at least 1979. One reason that Arctic sea ice has been reduced overall is because of the strong Gulf Stream which keeps the UK, Iceland, and Scandinavia “warm” in the winter evidenced by this graphic/map as of Jan 4th 2017:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow.gif
Note how far north the Gulf Stream keeps the arctic ice free. During the last 40 years there is no hint, no evidence, of this push of warm water current subsiding.
That’s where the magical tipping points take over.
J Philip, I was thinking the same thing — the current seems stronger than ever. That’s very good news for NW Europe.
From “American Scientist” (2006) by Richard Seager
Source of Europe’s Mild Climate
Subtitle:
The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
From the article you just cited:
“In fact, England and France enjoy milder winters than eastern Canada in large part because prevailing winds at these latitudes blow from west to east over the comparatively warm ocean, thus allowing much of Europe to have a mild “maritime” climate.”
And why is the comparatively warm ocean warm? – Because of the Gulf Stream…
J. Philip Peterson
Read the entire article with an open mind and look at all the orange/red color on the image at 6:12 pm.
The Gulf Stream is a small part of all that warm water.
Gulf Stream ==> couple of degrees change in Europe
The Rest ==> 10/15 degrees change in Europe
Oh. Based on a model. That’s all right then. “It’s Even Worse Than We Thought” (TM)
CO2 does everything, don’tcha know? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vdl3TRxv0c
for attention of the new USA administration
Chinese infiltrated US universities, used USA taxpayers money to fund research under directions of People’s Republic of China.
Fear not Russia, they’ll never catch up with Chinese.
Details :
Wei Liu of Yale University
Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Jiang Zhu of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
the research is funded by:
The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy
and Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China
(the above is a sarcastic comment, but you can take it anyway you like)
Not the myth about ” How its the North Atlantic Drift that keeps europe warm” again.
lf we have some Greenland blocking this winter, just watch how quickly this myth gets busted.
There is no “myth re: The Gulf Stream as it is of course real. The problem I have is with those that are still talking about the THC (thermohaline Circulation), now disguised as the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC for short). It is a “myth” as Oceanographer Dr. Carl Wunsch asserts. There is no known mechanism that has salt and temperature as driving ocean circulation. The wind with all its derived capacities is the main driver.
“The wind with all its derived capacities is the main driver.”
The wind is only responsible for the west to east flow, not south to north.
As shown above on a post further up, there is ice free water a thousand miles north of 45N that has nothing to do with normal flow of winds. The AMOC brings the warmer water up to the Artic ocean, otherwise with normal flow it would move west to east from Canada to Spain across the 45N line shown below.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow.gif
“journal Science Advances.” But not ‘make it up as you go along’ climate science’ ..
What the hell was peer review doing on this paper ? Playing the guitar ?
“Playing the guitar ?
No… banjo. And all the taxpayers must “squeal like a pig.”
As a American the proudest my moment in the movie was the beeping Newfoundland buoy on the computer screen. ONLY JOKING! Proudest moment was actually the plot of the triple polar sharknados on the computer screen that — oddly — were precisely circular despite the fact that they were plotted near the top of a Mercator map. ONLY JOKING! It was actually the use of computer models to ‘precisely’ predict global circulation months in advance. ONLY JOKING! It was actually the Statue of Liberty remaining erect through a tsunami that would have toppled a mountain ridge. Oh, the choices.
I’ve seen worse sci-fi movies.
The race to the bottom is furiously competitive.
Worse ones include:
2012 (neutrinos evolve!)
Transcendence (a blond terrorist murders scientists then becomes the film’s heroine)
“The” arrival (not the latest “Arrival” although that too is crap) aliens disguised as Mexicans blow CO2 to heat up the planet
Tropic Thunder (Tug Lightspeed saves the world from splitting in half 5 times – at least its only parody).
Event horizon (a spaceship approaches light speed and goes to hell)
“We show that the possibility of the return of Gozer the Gozerian, who will wreak havoc on our civilization, is hugely underestimated,”
I just picked a better movie.
Greenland is melting away? Has anyone bothered to let it know?
http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Another computer model GIGO
Back to real science. Seeing total eclipse of the sun is an event that is hard to forget. If you live in the USA and have never seen one (I consider myself lucky to have seen two in clear cloudless skies) now is the time to plan where to be on Monday, Aug. 21, 2017
(double click on the map to enlarge)
Agreed! Booked for the night in La Grande, OR, travel to Baker City, OR, the next morning to take in the event! Hoping for clear skies ……
I am reading a lot about biases, and “correcting” because of biases, but my question is, “What is the basis for determining a … bias … in the first place, if not another precursor … bias … usurping it ?
One bias seems to ascend to the pedestal of the index bias upon which a correction is adjusted from the alleged bias necessitating it. In other words, how do you determine if something is biased, without applying another bias to determine it ? And why is the determining bias the correct bias ?
I’m sure there is a convincing mathematical argument whose symbols I cannot understand to explain it, but I bet there is an equally convincing mathematical argument whose symbols I cannot understand to rebut that explanation. I should have stuck with math, so that I could play with the rest of the children in that advanced sandbox. (^_^)
schitzree (or anybody else): How do you make the inverted question mark (¿)?
Question to anyone who may know:
Since Earth has been warmer than the current time, and has had higher CO2 concentrations than current concentrations, is there any evidence that Europe has been extremely cold at the same time the rest of the world was very warm?
From YALE UNIVERSITY, another science paper:
Study finds potential instability in Atlantic Ocean water circulation system
New Haven, Conn. – One of the world’s largest ocean circulation systems may not be as stable as today’s weather models predict, according to a new study.
‘The researchers stressed that their new model may require additional refinement, as well. !! They said detailed information about water salinity, ocean temperature, and melting ice — over a period of decades — is essential to the accuracy of AMOC models. !!
____________________________________________
– So what for god’s sakes ‘detailed informations’ DO those researchers run on their ‘refined models’ –
when not
‘about water salinity, ocean temperature, and melting ice — over a period of decades —’ ?