Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists like Michael Mann have long predicted the slowdown of ocean currents, including the North Atlantic current which keeps Europe warm in winter, but measurements suggest that global wind speed and ocean currents are actually accelerating.
Climate change may be speeding up ocean circulation
Since the 1990s, wind speeds have picked up, making surface waters swirl faster
FEBRUARY 5, 2020 AT 4:29 PM
Winds are picking up worldwide, and that is making the surface waters of the oceans swirl a bit faster, researchers report. A new analysis of the ocean’s kinetic energy, measured by thousands of floats around the world, suggests that surface ocean circulation has been accelerating since the early 1990s.
Some of that sped-up circulation may be due to naturally recurring ocean-atmosphere patterns, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, researchers report February 5 in Science Advances. But the acceleration is greater than can be attributed to natural variability alone — suggesting that global warming may also be playing a role, says a team led by oceanographer Shijian Hu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Qingdao.
…
Global warming has long been predicted to slow global wind speeds, called “global stilling.” That’s because the poles are warming faster than the equatorial region, and a smaller temperature gradient between the two zones might be expected to result in weaker winds (SN: 3/16/18). But recent studies, such as a report published November 2019 in Nature Climate Change, suggest that wind speeds around the world have actually been speeding up, at least since about 2010.
The new study suggests that winds have actually been picking up over the oceans for several decades, leading to the faster-swirling surface waters especially in the tropics. The study used data collected by over 3,000 Argo floats, which measure temperature, salinity and speeds of currents down to about 2,000 meters, in oceans around the world. Then, the team combined these data with a variety of climate simulations to calculate the change in kinetic energy —energy from the wind motion that gets transferred to the water — in that upper part of the ocean.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/climate-change-speeding-up-ocean-circulation
The abstract of the study;
Deep-reaching acceleration of global mean ocean circulation over the past two decades
Shijian Hu, Janet Sprintall, Cong Guan, Michael J. McPhaden, Fan Wang, Dunxin Hu and Wenju Cai
Ocean circulation redistributes Earth’s energy and water masses and influences global climate. Under historical greenhouse warming, regional ocean currents show diverse tendencies, but whether there is an emerging trend of the global mean ocean circulation system is not yet clear. Here, we show a statistically significant increasing trend in the globally integrated oceanic kinetic energy since the early 1990s, indicating a substantial acceleration of global mean ocean circulation. The increasing trend in kinetic energy is particularly prominent in the global tropical oceans, reaching depths of thousands of meters. The deep-reaching acceleration of the ocean circulation is mainly induced by a planetary intensification of surface winds since the early 1990s. Although possibly influenced by wind changes associated with the onset of a negative Pacific decadal oscillation since the late 1990s, the recent acceleration is far larger than that associated with natural variability, suggesting that it is principally part of a long-term trend.
Read more: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/6/eaax7727
What does Michael Mann have to say about the impact of global warming on ocean currents? This article is from five years ago, but the science is settled, right?
Global Warming Is Slowing Ocean Currents Causing Dire Consequences, Warns Climate Expert Michael Mann
Cole Mellino Mar. 25, 2015 09:49AM EST
Climate scientists Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf announced the findings of their new study yesterday, which shows that the rapid melting of the polar ice has slowed down currents in the Atlantic Ocean, particularly since 1970. The scientists say “the slowdown in ocean currents will result in sea level rise in cities like New York and Boston, and temperature changes on both sides of the Atlantic,” reports NPR’s Jeremy Hobson. Mann, who is a professor and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, joined Hobson yesterday on Here and Now to discuss the study and the implications of its findings.
Not only would North America and Europe experience colder temperatures, but “If those current systems shut down, then suddenly the North Atlantic [fisheries] would no longer be productive,” says Michael Mann.
…
Read more: https://www.ecowatch.com/global-warming-is-slowing-ocean-currents-causing-dire-consequences-war-1882023145.html
Obviously Shijian Hu and colleagues may have gotten their calculations wrong, who can dispute the word of scientists like Mann and Rahmstorf?
On the other hand, if ocean currents are actually accelerating, and we apply Mann’s theory that global warming causes ocean currents to slow, does this mean ocean currents are accelerating because world is actually cooling? Or perhaps Mann’s theory is not reversible, warming causes a slowdown but cooling does not cause an acceleration? Or will ocean currents turn out to be an uncertain indicator subject to significant natural variation? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Is it just me or are these people absolutely insane?
In a word, YES. I would add delusional.
What goes up, must come down, If it speeds up it must slow down, whatever is was doing it will always do something else.
And if the slowed down currents are flowing faster than they did before the slow down, that would explain perfectly why global warming has resulted in a world cooler than it was before the warmup. And also why all this greenness makes me see red.
It takes about 30 seconds to follow the link and read that they’re talking about different things:
“…the new study focuses on “the amount of swirling around of upper ocean waters due to wind,” rather than the speed of that overturning circulation,…”
So no conflict, no delusion, no insanity and no need to hate Mann or any other climate scientist for that matter.
But congratulations, you’ve just been whistled by Eric ‘the dog-whistler’ Worrel.
Loydo, what drives the ‘overturning circulation”?
How about ‘The meridional overturning circulation (MOC) is a global circulation cell wherein surface waters in the high latitudes are cooled, thereby becoming denser; this dense water sinks and flows towards the equatorial regions.the surface waters’
REF https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/research/moc/namoc/
SEE THAT? SURFACE WATERS, or the ‘upper ocean waters due to wind’, just what you said.
DIFFERENT THINGS? I don’t think so . . .
BUT, I’m sure you’ll find SOMETHING to claim that isn’t the case. GO AHEAD, I DON’T CARE. It’s late here, and I won’t be up. Maybe someone else will reply to whatever you post after this. GOOD NIGHT
The bit people are talking about is this one
‘The increasing trend in kinetic energy is particularly prominent in the global tropical oceans, reaching depths of thousands of meters’
Lewis, we could calmly debate the the pros and cons of the possibly conflicting results and thats what could happen or should have happened on an honest science forum. Instead there is a completely unjustified avalanche of abuse, derision, insults and hate. Here is a brief sample from this thread (so far):
“absolutely insane”
“delusional”
“makes me see red”
“crazy, shameless liars”
“REALLY ARE INSANE”
“Insane…insanely chasing grants”
“absolute morons”
“the whole construct starts to collapse”
“What the hell are these people smoking????”
Plus shouty above. Barely any of these ‘contributors’ would have bothered to read much past the headline. Worrell seems to go out of his way to illicit and foment these types of angry, hateful responses, out of nothing really. I think it should be called out for what it is: despicable, cowardly and malicious.
Loydo Well, yes, too much invective that just clutters up the discussion.
The editors did try to stop trolling by using log in, but the US constitutional right to free speech means there is strong appeals to reasonableness using judgmental terms.
As an aside.
The Chinese follow a different line to Mann.
After all they don’t think that global warming is bad for China, and even if it were, having heat and power and technology is a way of controlling any harm.
A lot of China is desert and desertification follows global cooling, also China is a cold country. Heat means crops and food.
No more ‘great leaps forward’.
If what they say is true a lot follows.
That current running up the West coast of the US will presumably get stronger, explaining the warming of the Arctic.
CO2 then becomes irrelevant.
Theoretically CO2 should be slowing winds.
Always look to the CO2 theory.
Without special knowledge I am dubious of Argo Buoys.
They must follow currents as they float, so are picked up by stronger currents, as they have inertia.
So then that means we measure the stronger movements of water.
Then there is the big ‘Climate Science’ problem.
Orders of accuracy and verification.
Have a read of Heaven and Hell by Plimer
Now a bit dated, however the problem for him and others is that these changes lead to feedbacks which are not likely to destroy us.
In fact we have thrived when geologically warm times came and were nearly driven to extinction during the last major glaciation.
He just brought out another book which I have not read.
The Chinese, Russians,Brazilians and, of course, the Middle Eastern economies don’t think CO2 can be a problem.
The UK is going nuclear, with their Rolls Royce nuclear batteries.
That will cause angst in some Green circles.
But then, as is said, the Truth Is Out There.
“Worrell seems to go out of his way to illicit and foment these types of angry, hateful responses, out of nothing really. I think it should be called out for what it is: despicable, cowardly and malicious.”
I wouldn’t characterize the sarcasm displayed here as hateful or angry. And I wouldn’t characterize it as cowardly since it’s right out in the open and anyone can comment on the comment, like you have done and I am doing.
You know, after you see hundreds of insane proposals from the alarmists, some people tend to get fed up with debunking the craziness in detail, and just resort to calling them crazy. For the most part, there is no hate involved. They are just stating their opinion without malice although no doubt with much frustration.
Your efforts to demonize this website and the people who populate it are noted.
Loydo’s a hard core liberal. They define hate as anything short of full blown worship.
The troll who writes “Eric “the dog whistle” Worral, then goes on to whine about hateful rhetoric.
Irony is lost on the left.
And of course Loydo, there is no snark against skeptics going on over at your favorite site Hotwhopper, where you are a willing participant.
Hypocrisy, much?
Loydo sez:
But congratulations, you’ve just been whistled by Eric ‘the dog-whistler’ Worrel.
Got your attention……
I don’t think illicit means what Loydo thinks it means.
Actually reading the paper shows that the first header following the “Introduction” is “Deep-reaching acceleration of the global mean ocean circulation.” They’re looking at the “total kinetic energy anomaly” of the entire ocean.
The section headed “Deep-reaching acceleration of the global mean ocean circulation” concludes that yes, the total kinetic energy (i.e. velocity) of the global oceans is increasing. But at the very end of the “Introduction” section is this:
“However, because of a lack of systematic direct ocean current observations (24), the issue of whether there is a trend emerging over in the global mean ocean circulation remains elusive. Here, guided by in situ observations, reanalysis products, and model experiments, we show that a substantial acceleration of global mean ocean circulation has occurred over the past two decades.”
In other words, this isn’t based on much in the way of actual data. The supplementary data section (separate, but accessible) isn’t very helpful to me, since the data sources are given in terms of these maddening and gratuitous acronyms that the climate community insists on using (I think to make themselves sound “space-age” smart while obfuscating as much as possible).
Thanks for pointing that out, Michael.
Yes, they are crazy, and also very predictable, and they are shameless liars.
When ocean currents were predicted by them to slow, it was a disaster.
Now, if they are getting faster, it is a disaster.
If they find out at some point they are staying exactly the same, it will be a disaster.
Recall the hurricane drought?
The opposite, literally exactly the opposite of what they predicted.
And the response?
“It is terrifying that there have been no hurricanes.”
careful, you’re going to make Loydo cry. again.
No it’s not just you. THHESE PEOPLE REALLY ARE INSANE!
Nah, its just another one of Mann’s ‘tricks’.
Why this guy is listened to is beyond me.
Irrational and thick as mince. Fanatacism is redoubling your efforts while losing sight of any objective. Follow the money.
No, they are certifiably nuts.
Nothing insane about lying and cheating to get what you want. And being of lower than normal intelligence doesn’t count as insane, nor does being completely incompetent with statistics. That said, these are not necessarily Nobel Peace Prize (real or imaginary) worthy traits, and that is a low standard considering some of the winners and the fact a habitual school truant with mental health issues is now considered a contender for simply wining about how tough life is.
Wow, Spanky! The currents go faster when they warm? Golly gee, Buckwheat, it’s like the water is thinner and less viscous, so it flows faster.
The oceans have warmed a whopping 0.1ºC in the last 100 years, no panic, please.
Studies of the sediments in the strait between Florida and Cuba showed years ago that, with warmer water, the Gulf stream flows faster and, with colder water, it is more sluggish, exactly in tune with water’s viscosity. Wow, we re-invented Chem 101.
This is a good example, from Europe’s Gulf Stream warming effect, of a positive feed back loop. Warmer water makes them warmer and the ramped up speed transfers even more heat in their direction. However, with cooling waters, the heat transfer decreases and slows, which is not a good thing.
… and if water gets cold enough, it has the tendency to stay in one spot.
… and if water gets hot enough, it will go airborne and flow with the wind whither so-ever it will.
Insane…insanely chasing grants – to hell with real scientific credibility.
Evidently these morons can’t tell the difference between 15 pounds of pressure per square inch in 9000 and fundamentally the difference between a 15 pound mass in a 9000 pound Mass. This is the ratio of the mass and the sensible heat holding capacity of the air versus the oceans. There’s a similar ratio with regards to the mechanics of the air currents and the movement of the ocean waters the oceans regarded the airflow over them is trivial. From an engineering standpoint these guys are absolute morons.
Ocean currents are one of the most fundamental controllers of climate on this planet, for reasons that many frequenters of this site know much better than I do, being only a geologist. So if Dr. Mann predicted that with his knowledge of climate, that warming would cause these currents to slow, but measurements show that they have done the opposite–how is Dr. Mann’s entire understanding of his claimed field of expertise not now in serious question? Should he be passing his ‘knowledge’ on to others?
This bothered me a lot. If the arctic warms, there is less delta T with the equator and, the earth being a heat engine, there should be less north-south circulation.
On the other hand, there is also east-west circulation. zonal and meridonal flow
One of the graphics in the linked articles seems to indicate that the greatest change in circulation is along the equator. I’m guessing that the increased circulation is along the lines of latitude.
The story will have to change to “go with the flow”.
If ocean currents are moving faster, the oceans should absorb more CO2 and mingle it deeper to reduce the acidification effect. Sounds like an equilibrium.
Time for the warmists to go back in their caves. Mind you, Sydney, Australia today is a day to be holed up in a cave. In spite of the bureau of meteorology saying there won’t be any significant rain until April, the entire catchment area is going to get a good 2 inches (and the rest) over the entire catchment area. All over Sydney is going to get 4 inches-a tenth of our annual rainfall today. The northern beaches-Tony Abbott territory is about to cop a hammering. At least a couple of the fires have been quenched.
I saw that too HT. The Bureau of Meteorology actually told State and Federal ministers not to expect rain until April, that the fires were going to be around for months to come. How could the government bodies get the sandbags organised for flood zones when they’ve geared up to fight more fires?
BOM can’t predict torrential rainfall within a two week timeframe yet they expect us to believe that the earth is going to warm to dangerous levels by the end of the century. And apparently the only way to save it is to destroy the world ‘as we know it’. I’m waiting for them to tell us now that the floods are due to Climate Change.
How frustrating is it to have Michael Mann on our television programs. Barnaby Joyce had the odds stacked against him four to one including the journalist on Sixty Minutes, the politicians are starting to speak up here and Mann couldn’t give him a scientific answer to issues he raised. Mann may have been exposed in the courtroom as being questionable but he’s carrying on as though he is one hundred percent accurate and sadly there are many people ignorant of his story who have been sucked in.
Could it be that the faster ocean currents are causing a slight warming, by transporting a larger quantity of warmer water faster.
The chicken or the egg ————-.
Me wonders.
Maintaining a l1e gets harder & harder the longer it’s carried on.
Eventually the l1er can’t keep track of what’s been said before, and the whole construct starts to collapse.
Was it ever thus . . .
Ocean currents are speeding up, ocean currents are slowing down, there is drought, there is flood, there is snow, there is fire, there is sun, there is cloud, there is heat, there is cold,,,, and it is all caused by Global Warming and ‘Climate Change” Amen.
Wait, just a few months ago they were telling us that global warming was slowing down ocean currents.
Don’t tell me that CO2 is capable of making water go both faster and slower, at the same time.
Turbulence.
“The new study suggests that winds have actually been picking up over the oceans for several decades”
As everyone knows, if anything in the world changes, it’s caused by CO2. No need to actually prove a connection.
Slowing down — bad!
Speeding up — worse than we thought!
Either way, Climate Change wins.
This is much better than ‘one-way’ CAGW.
Either way; It’s just like they predicted.
That’s the play. The sky is falling, either way.
To be safe, they will end up saying that the global warming hypothesis predicts both acceleration and deceleration of ocean currents.
…simultaneously. And if you can’t accept that you must be a science denier. /sarc
On the simplest level, aren’t increasing ocean current speeds likely to make the “weather” more benign?
The temperature differential between the equator and the poles drives most of the catastrophic weather events – hurricanes and tornadoes in particular. Making the oceanic heat pump more efficient should reduce the differential.
This study has to be wrong, because we know the “science” of global warming says it is always worse than we thought.
Hurricanes (tropical cyclones) generally don’t get much of their energy from horizontal temperature gradients. (With some exceptions, mostly after their core wind speeds have peaked out, mostly farther from the equator and/or at times of the year that they are running into significant horizontal temperature gradients only moderately far from the equator.) I expect global warming to make tropical cyclones slightly more intense, although I also expect this to be outweighed by multidecadal oscillations because “tropical cyclone territory” is warming less than the world as a whole. I expect northern hemisphere windstorms other than tropical cyclones to get less windier because the Arctic is warming more than the world as a whole.
As for Sandy: When that storm made landfall it was mainly a nor’easter with a trace of remaining hurricane core (mostly consumed by the nor’easter shortly after the storm’s center moved over water too cool to maintain a hurricane), and the nor’easter that formed around the hurricane did so because that hurricane was heading into an area where a big nor’easter was about to form, during nor’easter season and in the late-season for hurricanes.
The phrase/name you seem to be missing is the proper meteorological name for storms that are sometimes by some people in a certain region called nor’easters.
They are called mid-latitude cyclones.
There is no season for these.
They are a continuous feature of the atmosphere, although at some times of year they may tend to get stronger, move more quickly, be more numerous, etc.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7s.html
Hurricanes result in a net poleward movement of heat, but by definition they take place within a single air mass, and not as a result of a clash of warm and cold air, as is the case with mid-latitude cyclones.
Lack of wind shear, low pressure at the surface and high pressure aloft, and humid air in all quadrants…this is what let’s hurricanes occur once the water is warm enough.
They are most frequent very close to the time of year that the latitudinal temperature variation reaches a minimum value and then reverses.
In the Atlantic basin hurricane season, the best predictor of hurricane activity is the state of the ENSO.
El niño conditions tend to inhibit Atlantic basin tropical cyclones, and la niña conditions tend to be associated with more active seasons.
A lot of tornadoes are associated with landfalling hurricanes, so those cannot be attributed to latitudinal temperature variations either.
The severe thunderstorms that lead to the strongest tornadoes are triggered by a clash of air masses of different temperature and humidity level, but there also need to be a turning of wind direction with height.
If there was some simple relationship between temperature contrasts and tornadoes, it ought to be possible to predict when there will be more of them or less of them well in advance, but as far as I know no one has done this. Recent years with hardly any tornadoes in the US were not predicted by anyone, AFAIK…or at least not anyone prominent (I am not talking about short term predictions related to specific storms, but large scale predictions on a seasonal or annual basis, based on temperature analysis of the relative temp of the poles and tropics).
Slowing. Accelerating. Cooling. Warming. Changing. Undeniable.
The logic the AGWers are using is: 1. Global Warming decreases gradients and so slows down circulation 2. this stalling causes some regions to get even hotter and some to get even cooler so 3. that sets up even stronger gradients. Ergo even stronger winds and currents.
Mann and friends have been using this kind of logic to predict intensification of Hadley Cell circulation for a while now.
Now ocean circulation joins the list of 30 other things that “climate change” is reported to affect in two opposite ways (warmer and colder, wetter and dryer etc.)
https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/
Here’s the list – in the NoTricksZone article each one is linked:
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease
Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink
Coral island atolls to rise
Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up
East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain
Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down (and it causes warming)
Gulf stream speeds up a little (and it also causes warming)
Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter
Indian rice yields to decrease
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced
Leaf area index increased
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease
North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up
Wind speed slows down
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer
Winters maybe colder
You left out the right handed swimming sharks .. HOW DARE YOU
Yes it was made in 2011 – originally by Jimbo here, reposted by Pierre Gosselin at NTZ.
Clearly in need of an update.
I was contemplating writing this piece of Science Mag junk science up.
So they climate scammers have all their bases covered. Every conceivable outcome.
Here in this research: Climate change –> faster ocean current.
But…
Here in thius research from 2018:
“Scientists Say Ocean Circulation Is Slowing. Here’s Why You Should Care.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07052018/atlantic-ocean-circulation-slowing-climate-change-heat-temperature-rainfall-fish-why-you-should-care
And the Nature research article:
“Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4
So the climate change faithful has all their bases covered. It is a religion. No matter what happens…. it is Climate Change due to man’s evil CO2 emissions.
A warming world means warming at the poles since the equator does not change. Warming poles means less temperature difference between the poles and the equator so less wind between the two. The planet has been cooling since 2002 so the poles are cooling and wind is increasing. Does that wind mean faster ocean currents? Possible.
As for the planet cooling since 2002: Please have a look at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2020_v6.jpg
I noticed the cooling in 2008. Judith Curry said 2002 so I will use that. I have not noticed it being warmer since and it is a lot colder. It really does not matter what a graph says. We who are living in the temperatures should be able to tell. That is, if you have your windows open.
It was cooling since 1998 and 2002 until the strong El Nino developed during especially 2016.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2015/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend
The strong El Nino and generally El Nino conditions since 2016 have maintained recent slighter higher global temperatures, nothing to do with CO2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2002/plot/uah6/from:2002/trend
Regarding:
“Since the 1990s, wind speeds have picked up, making surface waters swirl faster”
and
“But recent studies, such as a report published November 2019 in Nature Climate Change, suggest that wind speeds around the world have actually been speeding up, at least since about 2010.”
I remember making a comment to a Facebook post a couple months ago, saying manmade climate change cannot be responsible for both a wind speedup of recent years and a wind slowdown over the few decades before those recent years, while the Facebook posting tried to blame both on manmade climate change. Changes that last a few years or a decade are weather not climate, like the recent severe drought in Australia where there is no trend of droughts getting worse even with that drought included in trend calculations, like record-setting winter weather happening somewhere every winter, and like the US Dust Bowl period with a lot of drought (that has records still standing) and extreme high temperatures (most statewide alltime high temperature records from that period still stand). I expect the wind slowdown to resume according to whatever datasets are both reasonably accurate and reasonably comprehensive.
I think it is fair to say that climate change is increasing the speed of ocean currents AND I think it is fair to say that climate change is decreasing the speed of ocean currents, AND I think it is fair to say that climate change is not changing the speed of ocean currents.
I stopped reading after this, “But the acceleration is greater than can be attributed to natural variability alone…”
This evidence free assertion is a whopper alright.
I had a hard time taking it seriously after that as well…then again it is hard to take these people very seriously at all to begin with.
Wait…I take that back.
It is impossible.
They must mean some one is out there with a paddle?
yeah since 1990 and when did the argos get placed?
hardly enough time to establish anything much about variability ?
and volcanic vents all have an effect on temps and currents surely?
that massive pacific one with pumice flow as just one recent one of note, that’d muck up any argo buoys in it or nearby
Well, just think about it.
They started out with the fact that heat flows from the tropics to the polar regions, and this flow of energy is via air and ocean currents.
So how did the poles get warmer?
Obviously by more heat flowing from the tropics.
Would more heat be flowing if winds were getting weaker”
If ocean currents were slowing?
The atmosphere can and does shed heat to space very rapidly.
Between the hottest part of the day and dawn of the following day, an almost unlimited amount of cooling can occur.
And does occur.
If the poles are warmer, more heat is being transported there.
Of course, global warming causes global cooling. The globe is like a doughnut, heat goes up around the equator and down at the poles. Think about a thermal low and those dust devils.
Donuts go up around the equator and down at the poles? ;-/
I thought the Earth was like a large macaroon.
And the atmosphere was like a lava lamp.
At that point I decided to take some classes on the relevant subjects.
Best to stick to what can be observed.
Here are some handy reference images on my Twitter page…just scroll around to see more.
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1147684465768042496?s=20
If global warming is triggered by 2W/m**2 of extra longwave radiation, and evaporation rids the surface of 80
W/m**2, thus causing winds and currents, then even a slight increase in tropospheric dynamics is going to take a fair fraction of that 2W/m**2. So this would have to be a powerful negative feedback effect. Perhaps this is why the models are not yet completely exact.