Study: Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but the press release adds climate porn

From the University of Washington – Hannah Hickey where the original headline in the press release says “Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but as it shifts gears, global warming will reaccelerate“. Problem is, the researcher doesn’t know and says:

“We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know if it’s periodic, but based on the surface phenomena we think it’s very likely that it’s periodic,” Tung said.

Right, “reaccelerate” is not the same as “resume a natural period”. Clearly, Ms Hickey, who wrote the story, added that bit of climate porn. – Anthony


Topographic map of the Nordic Seas and subpolar basins with schematic circulation of surface currents (solid curves) and deep currents (dashed curves) that form a portion of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Colors of curves indicate approximate temperatures. Source: R. Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Science/USGCRP.

Data suggest that the recent, rapid slowdown of the Atlantic Ocean circulation is not a sign of imminent collapse, but a shift back toward a more sluggish phase. The slowdown implies that global air temperatures will increase more quickly in the coming decades.

A huge circulation pattern in the Atlantic Ocean took a starring role in the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” In that fictional tale the global oceanic current suddenly stops and New York City freezes over.

The paper was published July 18 in Nature.While many aspects of the movie are unrealistic, oceanographers are concerned about the long-term stability of the Atlantic Ocean circulation, and previous studies show that it has slowed dramatically in the past decade. New research from the University of Washington and the Ocean University of China finds the slowdown is not caused by global warming but is part of regular, decades-long cycle that will affect temperatures in coming decades.

“Climate scientists have expected the Atlantic overturning circulation to decline long-term under global warming, but we only have direct measurements of its strength since April 2004. And the decline measured since then is 10 times larger than expected,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics with an adjunct appointment in atmospheric sciences.

“Many have focused on the fact that it’s declining very rapidly, and that if the trend continues it will go past a tipping point, bringing a catastrophe such as an ice age. It turns out that none of that is going to happen in the near future. The fast response may instead be part of a natural cycle and there are signs that the decline is already ending.”

The results have implications for surface warming. The current’s speed determines how much surface heat gets transferred to the deeper ocean, and a quicker circulation would send more heat to the deep Atlantic. If the current slows down, then it will store less heat, and Earth will be likely to see air temperatures rise more quickly than the rate since 2000.

The top panel shows global average surface temperature changes since 1950, with two periods of slower change and a period of rapid warming from 1975 to 2000. The lower panels show the strength of the Atlantic overturning circulation. The blue (and, on the right, purple) curve is the salinity north of 45N, an indirect measure, or proxy, for the AMOC strength. The green curve is an established proxy of AMOC.Ka-Kit Tung/University of Washington

“The global climate models can project what’s going to happen long-term if carbon dioxide increases by a certain amount, but they currently lack the capability to predict surface warming in the next few decades, which requires a knowledge of how much the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases is being absorbed by the oceans,” Tung said.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is a conveyor belt that brings surface water northward in the Atlantic; from there, the heavier salty water sinks and returns at depth from the Labrador and Nordic seas, near the North Pole, all the way south to the Southern Ocean. Most people are interested in what happens at the surface — the Gulf Stream and associated Atlantic currents carry warmer water north, bringing mild temperatures to Western Europe.

But the new paper argues that the most important step, from a climate perspective, is what happens next. In the North Atlantic, the saltier water from the tropics sinks almost a mile (1,500 meters). As it does, it carries heat down with it away from the surface.

These lines show different ways of gauging the strength of the Atlantic overturning circulation. Direct monitoring only began in 2004, so other oceanic measures are needed to extend the dataset back to 1950.Ka-Kit Tung/University of Washington

When the current is faster, more of the warm, salty tropical water travels to the North Atlantic. Over years this causes more glaciers to melt, and eventually the freshwater makes the surface water lighter and less likely to sink, slowing the current.Changes in the strength of the AMOC affect how much heat leaves our atmosphere. The new study uses a combination of data from Argo floats, ship-based temperature measurements, tidal records, satellite images of sea-surface height that can show bulges of warm water, and recent high-tech tracking of the AMOC itself to suggest that its strength fluctuates as part of a roughly 60- to 70-year, self-reinforcing cycle.

When the AMOC is in a slow phase, the North Atlantic becomes cooler, ice melt slows, and eventually the freshwater melt source dries up and the heavier saltier water can plunge down again, which speeds up the whole circulation.

The new study argues that this current is not collapsing, but is just transitioning from its fast phase to its slower phase – and that this has implications for heating at the surface.

From 1975 to 1998, the AMOC was in a slow phase. As greenhouse gases were accumulating in the atmosphere, Earth experienced distinct warming at the surface. From about 2000 until now, the AMOC has been in its faster phase, and the increased heat plunging in the North Atlantic has been removing excess heat from the Earth’s surface and storing it deep in the ocean.

“We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know if it’s periodic, but based on the surface phenomena we think it’s very likely that it’s periodic,” Tung said.

The new paper supports the authors’ previous research showing that since 2000, during which observations show a slowdown in surface warming, heat has accumulated deep in the Atlantic Ocean. The new study shows this is the same period when Atlantic overturning circulation was in its fast phase.

Recent measurements of density in the Labrador Sea suggest the cycle is beginning to shift, Tung said. That means that in coming years the AMOC will no longer be sending more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases deep into the North Atlantic.

“The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn’t be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon,” Tung said. “The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”

The first author is Xianyao Chen at the Ocean University of China and Qingdao National Laboratory of Marine Science and Technology. The study was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Basic Research Program of China and a Frederic and Julia Wan Endowed Professorship.

###

Advertisements

36 thoughts on “Study: Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but the press release adds climate porn

  1. ” The slowdown implies that global air temperatures will increase more quickly in the coming decades.”

    “Many have focused on the fact that it’s declining very rapidly, and that if the trend continues it will go past a tipping point, bringing a catastrophe such as an ice age”

    …..50% chance of rain

    • Ever notice how it’s all about atmospheric phenomena, so long as it supports the AGW premise? But then the narrative changes to the oceans being more important (which IS true) when it suits the narrative.

  2. “The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn’t be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon,” Tung said. “The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”

    The above from the article.

    My response is the opposite is going to happen and the article’s premise about greenhouse gasses is 100% wrong.

    I say the cooling trend has started based on my theory. This year being the transitional year.

    This is why this period of time in the climate is so vital it is a test of theories and thoughts and we shall see which are correct and which are wrong now- over the next few years..

    • That paragraph shows that the authors did not find out any new information that would alarm anybody about the buildup of heat in the oceans. The last sentence has got nothing to do with the report. It was put in there to appease the PAL review committee. So in conclusion a junk scientific report that should have never been published.

  3. The tyranny of the headline writers continues, disguised as a “service.” I’ve seen it with my own work.

  4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html

    This data on the AMO does not square with what the article presents. It said when the AMOC is in a slow phase 1975-1998 the N. Atlantic becomes cooler yet data in the above does not show this. Then it says from 2000-now the AMOC is in a fast phase, which means according to the article the N. Atlantic should be warming and yet the N. Atlantic is undergoing drastic cooling over the past year.

    The correlation seems weak to be generous.

    Do I have this correct?

  5. So, the article is really saying that much of the warming from 1975 to 2000 is caused by natural processes and not CO2 ?

    • Good catch! No, wait. I guess they are saying that the rate of warming was slowed by the current. Or maybe they are saying that if it wasn’t for the Gulf Stream, we would be toasted in our own atmosphere. Wait. That doesn’t add up. Wouldn’t the seas be boiling by now due to all the heat absorbed since millions of years ago? I am so confused!

  6. Ugh! They admit their previous claims of impending disaster from the North Atlantic Current suddenly stopping, ala ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ tipping point, were wrong. They acknowledge the likely cyclic nature of the Atlantic overturning circulation. Then, based on barely one cycle of data, they leap directly into unsubstantiated conjecture about CO2, declaring “As greenhouse gases were accumulating in the atmosphere, Earth experienced distinct warming at the surface. From about 2000 until now, the AMOC has been in its faster phase, and the increased heat plunging in the North Atlantic has been removing excess heat from the Earth’s surface and storing it deep in the ocean.”

    CO2 is not required for equatorial latitude lands and waters to be warmed by the sun.
    CO2 is not required and does not drive AMOC.
    Any ‘heat plunging in the North Atlantic’ is not ‘stored’. Through mixing in the northern latitudes and circulation into the Arctic Ocean, the smallest and shallowest of the world’s five major oceans, the ‘heat’ returns to the surface and is radiated from open water to the atmosphere and into space.

    This natural ocean circulation process has likely been present since plate tectonics closed the Central America passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the North Atlantic Current circulation came into force. It moves heat from the solar driven heat absorbers in the equatorial latitudes to the heat radiator in the Arctic Ocean latitudes. Naturally. No CO2 carbonation and effervescent hyperbole is required for this planetary scale oceanic circulation to occur. KISS principle applies…

    • There’s a soap opera title that aptly describes how the whole thing works: “As the World Turns” (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, lol – the planet really would have to stop turning for this circulation to “collapse”)

  7. NASA JUNK SCIENCE

    If you look at the Energy budget diagram on the NASA site ( be careful NASA has a lot of archived stuff which is out of date) which they tweak regularly, three things stand out. 1) they expect us to believe that the surface is enitting more than it is receiving from the sun 2) They do not separate out the albedo or emittance between the oceans and the land. 3) They are expecting us to believe that average DWIR at 340W/m^2 is 1/4 the power of the sun on a hot summer day (1361W/m^2) without any albedo.

    1) I have already talked about the impossibility of no. 1 in a previous post but in this post I want to discuss points no 2 and 3.

    2) There is a little known organization called The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

    https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-national-snow-and-ice-data-center-4129145

    “The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is an organization that archives and manages scientific data issued from polar and glacier ice research. Despite its name, the NSIDC is not a government agency, but a research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. It does have agreements with and funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation.”

    This is a prime example of government agencies building their empires by subcontracting some duties to an NGO which over time becomes indispensable because the duties and data collected are unique to that NGO. Even if the original government agency was disbanded, the NGO would live on (if private funding is available) to continue to carry on the message. Interestingly, these NGO’s often name themselves a name which the public will easily confuse them into believing that it is a government agency. As with everything else in Boulder Colorado they are warministas. But I digress. This NGO has now an important role to play in albedo, and absorption of solar energy by the snow and ice of the earth surface.
    On their site they say that
    “Albedo is a non-dimensional, unitless quantity that indicates how well a surface reflects solar energy. Albedo (α) varies between 0 and 1. Albedo commonly refers to the “whiteness” of a surface, with 0 meaning black and 1 meaning white. A value of 0 means the surface is a “perfect absorber” that absorbs all incoming energy. Absorbed solar energy can be used to heat the surface or, when sea ice is present, melt the surface. A value of 1 means the surface is a “perfect reflector” that reflects all incoming energy.A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. ”

    What they don’t say is the relationship bewteen absorbance and emission. All bodies will eventually emit the energy that they absorb. So if a blackbody absorbs 100 % then its emittance will be 100%. If the ocean water albedo is 0.06 then its absorbance is 0.94 and its emittance will be .94. However a good chunk of that is energy translated into latent heat upon evaporation. The hotter the air temperature above the sea surface, the more the evaporation. If sea ice albedo ( amount of reflection ) is 0.5 then its emittance will be 0.5. However there is disagreement among emissivity authorities on the emissivity of snow (even pure white snow) Thermoworks https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table gives snow emissivity of 0.8 without giving a graph of how it changes with temperature. According to the NASA energy budget graph the surface average albedo is (flux reflected by surface divided by ( solar input – flux reflected by clouds and atmosphere) 22.9W/m^2 divided by (240W/m^2-77W/m^2) = 0.087 and thus its eventual emissivity has to be 0.913. However when you add the back radiation to the amount absorbed by surface you get 340.3 + 163.3 = 503.6
    Since they say that amount emitted by surface is a total IR =398.2 + convection =18.4 and evapotranspiration = 86.4 that totals 503 giving a net absorbed of 0.6. However if the true emittance of the surface is 0.913 then the surface can never emit more than 459.7. Of course they adjust the
    convection =18.4 and evapotranspiration = 86.4 figures to make things almost balance. The problem is that evaporation is way more than 86.4/ 503.6
    = 17%.
    NASA are having us believe that all the water on the earth’s surface including the 70% which is oceans is only responsible for 17% of the latent heat transferred to the atmosphere plus the convection which is only 18.4/503.6 = 3.65% and thus the other 79.35% is transferred by IR from the oceans and IR from the land. So we are to believe that almost 80% of the flux from the earth’s surface is transported by LWIR. The earth’s atmosphere is average 2% H2O vapour, and all of that vapour has latent heat which came from the surface water. The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and a lot more than the land. There is on average 50 times as much H2O vapour as there is CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is truly that much LWIR being transported to the atmosphere from the surface then NASA would have us believe that the 2 main GHG’S which compose 2.04% on average of the atmosphere, are being asked to absorb nearly 80% of the total heat flux (IR) from the surface which in turn is 163.3 (net solar absorbed by surface) + 77.1(direct solar absorbed by atmosphere) =240.4 W/m^. So 79.35% of that is ~190 W/m^2. So NASA would have us believe that more than 55% of the original solar radiance of 340W/m^2 is being absorbed by CO2 and H2O (clouds and water vapour) which make up 2.04% on average of the total volume of the atmosphere. N2 and O2 have 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2 and 25 times the heat capacity of the H2O vapour in the atmosphere. Since N2 and O2 are not good absorbers of IR, it is inconceivable that CO2 and H2O would be asked to absorb 55% of the total solar radiance that hits the earth.

    3) If the average DWIR back radiation at 340W/m^2 is 1/4 the power of the sun on a hot summer day (1361W/m^2) without any albedo, then how come I have never felt it. I havent felt it when standing out of the sun’s rays and open to the sky and I haven’t felt it at night, even if it was a cloudy night. The global warming hypothesis asks us to suspend our belief in the laws of physics.

  8. They might as well be predicting swirling patterns on a soap bubble for all the accuracy they claim.

  9. Meanwhile not far away in another part of town…. Klower et al 2014 predicted north Atlantic cooling

    “The paper is Klöwer et al. (2014) Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the prediction of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. It is a study of the cause of the multidecadal variability of the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). They find that multidecadal variations in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation, precede the changes in North Atlantic surface temperatures. Their findings suggest the “present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency”.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/24/new-study-predicts-a-slight-cooling-of-north-atlantic-sea-surface-temperatures-over-the-next-decade/

    So who is right?

    Is the North Atlantic currently in its (faster flow) cool phase and going to get warmer as this paper says or in a warm phase and going to get a bit cooler as Klower is saying?

  10. When the current is faster, more of the warm, salty tropical water travels to the North Atlantic.

    There’s a fundamental misconception here that the “slow phase” of the AMOC refers to the speed of northward surface transport by the Gulf Stream. Actually, it refers to the relatively small fraction of total mass transport that, because of higher density, winds up slowly sinking into the depths. The vast bulk of near-surface waters, mixed by turbulence, remain near the surface. Speeds of the thermohaline AMOC are orders of magnitude smaller than those of the wind-driven circulation and are not strongly coherent.

  11. “If the current slows down, then it will store less heat”??

    What utter bollocks. The heat “stored” depends on the heat capacity of water, not on its velocity.

    • Ed Zuiderwijk :
      ………………………NOT if you show it as RED !
      RED CARS are ALWAYS faster than BLUE CARS !
      ergo. RED CURRENTS always move faster than BLUE CURRENTS
      or even Yellow or Purple or………damn it ! Where WAS I going with this idea ?

  12. When the AMOC is in a slow phase, the North Atlantic becomes cooler, ice melt slows, and eventually the freshwater melt source dries up and the heavier saltier water can plunge down again, which speeds up the whole circulation.

    That makes no sense. It sounds like two bodies of water fighting it out.

    If you add cold fresh water to equally cold salty water, you reduce the density of the resulting mixture. You get a surface layer that may actually be less dense than the warmer, but saltier, water below it. It, therefore is less willing to sink and circulation could, in the extreme case, stop.

  13. In the UK the global warming scare for this week has been that the water temperature will increase and we will get more sharks around the coast. There is usually some reference to the film Jaws somewhere in each article.

  14. “a quicker circulation would send more heat to the deep Atlantic.”

    WR: the ‘heat’ that is send to the deep Atlantic actually has a temperature of only 3.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.

    See the arrows in the following figure, representing moments of deep downward convection of ocean water. in one of the big ‘sinks’ of the Northern Atlantic, the Irminger Sea. Temperatures in C on the left:

    https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/a01471c2-c259-43d6-8452-608b2820d574/grl54649-fig-0005-m.jpg

    Source: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL069596

    WR: the water containing the ‘heat’ that has been sent to the deep has a temperature that is around 10 degrees lower than the average global surface temperatures of 14.5 degrees Celsius. A very, very strange story.

    What really has been happening is, that during the recent period of warming (by a warm influx of surface and subsurface water) there was less sea ice over large areas in the North Atlantic/Arctic, NW of Europe. Because of that, the Arctic has known a period with a lot more of water vapor in the air. And water vapor is our main surface radiation absorbing gas. The extra water vapor was preventing surface radiation to escape directly into space, together with the warmer water influx resulting in the Arctic warming effect.

    Secondly, the water vapor resulted in upward convection by low pressure areas, attracting extra relatively warm and water vapor rich air from the southwest. Resulting in ……. less escape of surface radiation directly into space. And so resulting in more surface warming in the Arctic.

    In the nearby future the already cooling Northern Atlantic will result in less water vapor in the high latitudes and in a changing circulation system that further will diminish the water vapor content of the Arctic area. Resulting in a more massive loss of radiation, directly into space. Cooling the Arctic further.

    By less absorbing H2O (as water vapor) in the air.

  15. This article is total rubish. The data suggests, the slower it goes, the more time for heat to radiate out to space, thus the colder the arctic will become. Ice will accumulate, increasing albedo, cooling the system even more. Heat will continue to be driven north by winds, but instead of it sinking with salty water, more of it will escape in the cold arctic … and again, radiate out to space. There is not going to be any run away global warming due to a slowing conveyor. Ain’t gonna happen.

  16. “Climate porn” involves climate models, right ? The models assume extreme positions and willingly receive all manner of data thrust into them, to produce climagasmic outcomes … [cue sleazy saxophone music]

  17. Interesting read especially after Willis Eschenbachs “La Nina Pump” article. Strong similarities in modus operandi of the currents. Obviously different basins make for different details but a step back and look at the big picture is interesting.

  18. I have been arguing here for years that the AMOC is a nonlinear oscillator driven by the salinity – downwelling positive feedback, and curtailed by the negative feedback of Greenland ice melt choking off the downwelling. This confirms that people out there read WUWT. Here’s my post from several years ago:

    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 and 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 washing machine. However in the real world of complex systems positive feedback does not do this, instead it causes self-limited excursions, 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 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.

    It is not a regular 60 year oscillation. Instead it is an internal nonlinear oscillation of varying and irregular timing, with possible astrophysical (e.g. solar) external weak periodic forcing.

  19. I will have to take issue with the general opinion of what is happening in the Atlantic. In 1911 I analyzed the data for the North Atlantic and came to the conclusion that a general rearrangement of the North Atlantic flow pattern had taken place a the beginning of the twentieth century, One consequence of this rearrangement of North Atlantic flow pattern to direct the northward-flowing Gulf Stream more directly at the Arctic Ocean. This had the consequence of increasing the delivery of warm water to the Arctic that showed north. It showed itself as a steady warning of north the Atlantic waters starting in the late seventies. R he usual war mists assigned it to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect despite the fact that temperature increase was was twice as fast as their calculations predicted. The changeover to the new flow pattern was not entirely smooth. The warming started at the beginning of the century and by 1940 it had risen almost two degrees when a sudden cold wave entered. In the next thirty years temperature dropped by a degree and a half, grades, temperature stabilized and started what we perceive as a current Arctic warming. None of this had anything to do itrh the greenhouse effect bot “scientists” inculcated wit carbon dioxide dogma kept referring to it as such. A few other things need to be straightened out as well. Thus, there was a big melt in the Arctic in 2007 caused by warm water entering the Arctic via the Bering Strait due to unusually strong northerly winds Nobody undersyood it so this. too, was ascribed to CO2 magic.

    Reference: Energy & Environment Vol. 22, Issue 8, pages 1069-1083 (2011)

    • Arno
      In 1911 I analyzed the data for the North Atlantic

      So how old are you now – 130-something?
      Respect!

  20. It’s always win-win for the warmists.
    Is the AMOC speeding up?
    Then more tropical warm water is being transported polewards, so global warming will increase.
    Is the AMOC slowing down?
    Then less cold water is downwelled in the high north Atlantic, and indirect warming at 4km depth is instantaneously translated with zero lag time into increased atmospheric global warming.
    Heads I win, tails you lose.
    This is politicised, post-modern, post-Popperian science.

  21. Don’t agree with the assumptions from this new study.

    Data since 2004 for the AMOC shows a slowdown while the hiatus was occurring at the same time.

    http://www.rapid.ac.uk/rapidmoc/rapid_data/transports.php

    “The slowdown implies that global air temperatures will increase more quickly in the coming decades.”

    The slowdown shows the North Atlantic ocean cooling and when at a increasingly faster pace the North Atlantic ocean was warming.

    The faster the current, the more energy available to the atmosphere because it therefore is more regular topped up at the ocean surface. The slower the current the more time it has to lose energy to the atmosphere and space before it gets a chance to reach the Arctic ocean. A faster current will always reach the Arctic with more energy available to the surface there.

    How does cooling the Arctic ocean cause global air temperatures to increase more quickly?

    I don’t see any chance of warming more quickly because all rises have only occurred from strong El Nino’s. There wasn’t a slowdown in global temperatures before the 1980’s because there was cooling as much as the warming period after it.

Comments are closed.