Researchers found that salinity changes as a result of water cycle changes lead to less surface warming
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI ROSENSTIEL SCHOOL OF MARINE & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE
MIAMI—A new study led by scientists at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, in collaboration with scientists at Princeton University, shows that the intensification of global hydrological cycle drives more ocean heat uptake into the deep ocean and moderates the pace of global warming.
As a result of a warming climate, the global water cycle becomes more intensified and as a result wet regions are getting wetter and dry regions are getting drier. The researchers found that this intensification is also reflected in ocean salinity. The increase in ocean surface salinity in salty regions, such as the subtropical oceans, leads to denser seawater and more heat uptake in to the deep ocean. The increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake would reduce the rate of surface warming.
“We discovered a new mechanism that influences the rate of global warming through a suite of climate model experiments,” said Maofeng Liu, a postdoctoral researcher at the UM Rosenstiel School, Department of Atmospheric Sciences. “The good match between climate model simulations and observations in the past few decades suggest that the salinity changes due to human-induced warming are likely working to enhance the ocean heat uptake.”
To conduct the study, the researchers used a global climate model to conduct two sets of experiments. In the first set of experiments conducted as a baseline, they increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration one percent per year until it doubled. In the second set of experiments, they repeated the first experiment but do not allow the surface salinity to respond to the CO2-induced global hydrological cycle changes. The different outcome from the two sets of experiments highlights the impact of the water cycle changes in the ocean heat uptake and transient climate change.
Global warming from emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is increasing sea levels and resulting in more frequent and intense storms, drought, and wildfires.
“Predicting the rate of global warming is still a challenge,” said Liu. “This study found a new impact to the rate of global warming.”
The study, titled “Enhanced hydrological cycle increases ocean heat uptake and moderates transient climate change,” was published on Sep 23, 2021 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study’s authors include: Maofeng Liu, Brian Soden and Bosong Zhang from the UM Rosenstiel School; and Gabriel Vecchi and Wenchang Yang from Princeton University.
Funding for the study was provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
About the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School
The University of Miami is one of the largest private research institutions in the southeastern United States. The University’s mission is to provide quality education, attract and retain outstanding students, support the faculty and their research, and build an endowment for University initiatives. Founded in the 1940’s, the Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science has grown into one of the world’s premier marine and atmospheric research institutions. Offering dynamic interdisciplinary academics, the Rosenstiel School is dedicated to helping communities to better understand the planet, participating in the establishment of environmental policies, and aiding in the improvement of society and quality of life. For more information, visit: www.rsmas.miami.edu and Twitter @UMiamiRSMAS
Nature Climate Change
METHOD OF RESEARCH
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Enhanced hydrological cycle increases ocean heat uptake and moderates transient climate change
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news r
Models, models I tell you, all the way down!
Kraftwerk made a song about them.
As soon as I read the title I knew it would be a discovery in the fantasy world of a non validated computer model.
There are so many ways in which their models do NOT match what the climate does in reality, there is ZERO validity in all these “experiments” as what a model does.
Models, models has got to be one of the most boring replies.
Trashing models that predict the precise opposite of reality is a moral obligation.
Unf. the current models don’t predict the precise opposite of reality. Those would be useful models, similar to this one: “Everything Joe Biden says is true.” The utility lies (no pun) in taking the opposite as true, and assuming that everything Joe Biden says is a lie. That rule has actual utility, and I use it every day, unless Joe says he intends to do something stupid. That you can believe.
Alas, the present climate models are more like the famous compass made briefly by Tates Instrument Comany. Due to a persistent manufacturing error, the Tates compasses pointed in a direction that was not 180° off, but approximately 75° off from magnetic north, resulting in the truism, “He who has a Tates is lost.”
I don’t care who you are, that, there, is funny.
Tell us how they verified the models by using the ARGO measurements for the top 2000 meters of the ocean! I’ll bet they didn’t bother because the models are real physical data, right?
They used NOAA’s “Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content: Seasonal, Yearly, and Pentadal Fields” model.
I did not see a reference to how their annual ocean temperature increase forecasts, increased annually out to 200 years.
Truth and facts a b_tch!
Not only is their method Models, models; they use annual growth factors that are not based in reality.
It is akin to you adding 1% to your savings, then pronouncing that you’ll have $$$$$.$$ funds 200 years in the future.
I thought models had legs all the way up.
I used to be a model but because I’m short the only work I could get was for Airfix
LOL I had to look that up. I never was good at modeling.
“We discovered a new mechanism that influences the rate of global warming through a suite of climate model experiments,”
<- No such thing as a model experiment. There are just bad scientists.
PS: “Models all the way down” was my phrase, but I’m happy to share.
Same old, “global warming causing sea level rise and more storms, droughts and wildfires” yet it takes only a few minutes to destroy this by looking at actual data. Even if the study had merit it destroys itself with same old.
For warmunists they are pretty tame.
One would expect that this super Armageddonic climate change chaos would result in far more unpredictable climate patterns and anomalies and climatic shifts (greening deserts,desertification of brazil etc ) but the only thing they can come up with”wet regions are getting wetter,dry regions drier “(I’m pretty sure they missed the fear porn lessons at college)
But the more important thing imo is -where the hell is the sea level rise?
Now I’m missing it more than ever.
Besides all the(official )massive record melts of the last 3 decades we have now discovered far more heat uptake into deep oceans
we now have to deal with the thermic expansion of oceans that are on average about 1.5 km deep.
Obamas 11.7 mio dollar front beach mansion should be completely under water.
Not front beach. Mansion is on tall, tall bluff, from which he can overlook the ocean and, like the MSM, his abysmal presidency. No necessity to thank me; don’t mansion it.
Why the hell are you negative 3?
Climateers are speeding up melting and sea level rise. They are slowing down the the Gulf Stream, they are disappearing the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, the 35yr Ice Age Cometh cooling from 1945 -1980, the Polar Bears, the penguins, they are augmenting the modern warming period (seemingly in vain with the new cooling period in development).
No trend in wildfires? Turn the United Arsonists for the Cause loose in California and Australia. Drought in California? Open the floodgates and waste lifegiving water…..
You have to hand it to them for industry and effort. They are the deus ex machina creating manmade global warming.
“The good match between climate model simulations and observations in the past few decades” ”
“Global warming from emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is increasing sea levels and resulting in more frequent and intense storms, drought, and wildfires.”
“the intensification of global hydrological cycle drives more ocean heat uptake into the deep ocean and moderates the pace of global warming.”
And the point, carry on regardless? The models will save us 😛
It’s real I tell you, it is real. Beware!
As usual, warming induces cooling, refreshing 😀
And all that with climate models 😀 Who would have thougt that ? 😀
If anyone is interested I found a gem of a little book:
Stalin and the Scientists by Simon Ings.
Its in the category of “popular science”, so it is not too in depth, but it does help if you have some knowledge of the the USSR and it’s history.
I liked the book because it really tells the tale of trying to do science in an ideological political atmosphere that is essentially “averse to truth“. The parallels between what we are living through now, with CAGW and what was going on in the Soviet Union then are amazing.
If you have ever heard the term “Lysenkoism” this book goes into in detail. It was essentially responsible for killing millions of Soviet peasants. The idea of seed vernalization, once latched on to, was impossible to halt. And anyone who got in the way was eliminated, including the entire field of genetics. The Soviet press was not micro-managed but so captivated by group-think and “the narrative” that it printed nothing but instances of spectacular successes. So, when Lysenko was challenged by the geneticists he pointed to the thousands of newspaper articles that touted his methods; basically accusing the geneticist of calling millions of citizens liars.
Lysenko had no academic credentials, virtually no scientific publications but had all of Soviet agriculture behind him, due to the media/press.
The book describes an upside down world where ideology subsumes reality. And this often pitted Soviet scientists, who were shackled by reality, against the society.
Thus you would get stuff like “warming induces cooling“. When the harvests never materialized, seed vernalization was never questioned, it was always something like: the seeds were not soaked long enough, the seeds were over soaked, the temperature was too hot or too cold, the seeds were cooled for too long a time or too short a time, etc.
Excerpt: Imagine basing your entire agricultural economy on a single plant:
The book will really leave you wondering if humanity has learned anything over the past hundred years or is even capable of learning?
So now explain the cooling from the late 40s to the late 70s.
Or the 21st Century Pause.
Give them a month or so and they’ll adjust it away
It has well known reasons. The real problem is that it has been explain to you deniers numberless times. So the mid 20th century cooling is the result of aerosols (mainly due to sulfur from fossils). This is it.
First it was the race card, now here’s playing the aerosol card.
Thank you for the explanation. Now, explain the unprecedented rate of warming seen from 1900 to 1940. Hint: It was not human released carbon dioxide.
So what was it, answer man?
What? From “the Science is Settled” crowd comes the quote “We discovered a new mechanism…”. I kind of like their theme, but climate models are not valid, whether you like their results or not.
The modellers are yet to discover their models are based on non-science. Until they make that discovery, they will continue to make new, but fundamentally flawed, discoveries.
So sad how RSMAS has devolved into a model-endorsing joke. Back in the early 80s I participated in some field studies with a doctoral candidate, collecting cores from the Intracoastal Waterway, yes collecting real data for analysis in the lab. How the mighty have fallen….
You only find something when you’re looking for it.
If you look for it in a model you wrote yourself, I guarantee you’ll find it.
And you always find it in the last place you looked.
I’m trying to make sense of this paragraph. Not having much luck. Not sure if it’s due to my ignorance or theirs.
NOTE: the study is paywalled.
What does “more intensified” mean? From previous paragraph it means more surface water is transferred to the deep ocean and vice-versa?
How do they know the intensification is “a result of a warming climate” ?
Where’s the proof that “wet regions are getting wetter…”?
How does CO2(?), warmer temps(?) cause the “increase in ocean salinity in salty regions”? As opposed to non-salty regions?
So saltier means more dense and therefore drops to the bottom of the ocean, being replaced with the colder bottom water?
Therefore the “rate of ocean heat uptake…” So now we have a cooler surface ocean temperature which sucks out more heat from the atmosphere?
even if this is trueespecially if this is true, does it not just reinforce the idea that the earth’s climate system has untold # of check and balances?
Thanks for any responses and sorry for so many questions.
It is a favourite trick of the alarmists to quote things like making dry areas dryer and wet areas wetter as if it is fact that is universally accepted when giving background for something else. Researchers who end up with a contrary conclusion (like this one, oceans moderate sensitivity) double down on this rhetoric to be seen as supporting the alarmist narrative while still being able to publish their conclusions. Hence all the goofball statements of “fact” that are alarmist talking points.
In this case they ran a model twice with one parameter being different and have the audacity to call it research.
It’s a water based heat engine, the climate. As it gets warmer it speeds up. And as a heat engine speeds up, it moderates. It moves heat faster from its sources to elsewhere. The fact that warm things move faster is in the neighborhood of a universal. And water is the medium for heat transfer. We’ve known that for a long time.
They do post SI, supplemental information, including graphs.
They use gross assumptions for growth factors in almost every one of their models.
They use NOAA’s Joules instead of Celsius “Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content: Seasonal, Yearly, and Pentadal Fields” to make infinitesimally small numbers appear large.Couple with NOAA’s FLOR climate models, “FORECAST-ORIENTED LOW OCEAN RESOLUTION (FLOR)”
They run models out 200 years using their often incremental gross assumption growth factors.
This is a perfect example of twisted logic. They started with the conclusion (AGW) and tried to figure some way to explain what they were seeing. It is anti-science idiocy at its worst.
I’ve been saying for years that much of the warming we have seen is due to a natural cycle of increasing salinity. It is the driving force. They see it too but cannot state the obvious. So, it must be some sort of convoluted effect of AGW. They wrap themselves into the proverbial knot to ignore science. That his nonsense could ever be published is yet another example of the anti-science nature of climate studies.
“This is a perfect example of twisted logic. They started with the conclusion (AGW) and tried to figure some way to explain what they were seeing. It is anti-science idiocy at its worst.”
We get a lot of that from alarmist climate “science”.
“What does “more intensified” mean?”
I wondered that myself. Not very descriptive. Not very scientific, either.
I just read in Germany, that PG&E is sued for manslaughter causing the Zogg Fire in California caused by a not removed tree falling on the overhead line.
The prosecutor has enough proofs against PGE is said.
Found it now in English news too after the German hint:
PG&E Is Charged With Manslaughter In A California Wildfire That Killed 4
Pacific Gas & Electric was charged Friday with manslaughter and other crimes after its equipment sparked a Northern California wildfire that killed four people and destroyed hundreds of homes last year, prosecutors said.
Just search for CC 😀 – no mention 😀
When I read that my first thought was, “Are they going to put a legislatively-regulated, public utility corporation in jail for manslaughter?” Or perhaps dissolve (execute) the corporation, denying citizens in the state from having electricity and gas? Or will they fine the corporation, requiring it to raise rates to continue to be solvent, thus effectively requiring the customers to pay the fine? It seems that the democratically controlled state is unclear on the legal definition of manslaughter.
They just found a new way to tax the citizens. Fine corporations! What’s next, fines for making cars that go too fast? Maybe, fines for corporations that don’t segregate their employees based upon their intersectional checkmarks? Or those who don’t implement masks as a requirement for work?
For the life of me….how do wildfires affect ocean temps?
The sentence is one of the CAGW shibboleths or ecco la ficas that must be uttered in every sciency publication to maintain ones good standing in the Lysenkoist community. Just think of it as “blah, blah, blah,” and move on past it.
Some years ago now, I considered myself unshockable as to what shortcuts they would not hesitate to employ in the rush for global warming.
Then I read (at Judith Curry’s place, I believe) that the marvellous models didn’t trouble themselves about the fact that the enthalpy of vaporization of water varies by about 5% over temperature ranges commonly encountered in the Earth’s climates.
Paraphrasing, Gavin the Schmidt appeared to be well aware of the issue but was kinda like ‘yeah, whatever, it probably cancels out, and is just too hard anyway’.
He’s a mathematician by training. Plus or minus five percent of a fundamental constant in the most important process in the geosphere troubled him not. I was somewhat dismayed that Judith Curry appeared only slightly concerned that models didn’t bother with such trivia.
Five percent? The estimates of the effect of doubling CO2 have varied some three hundred percent ever since 1978.
Yes, Schmidt was trained in mathematics.
Compared with what other physical features models do not bother with, the variation in enthalpy of water vaporisation is below trivia.
I consider their greatest weakness is the lack of mass balance on atmospheric water. Atmospheric water has three independent treatments. Water vapour that is regarded as a greenhouse gas causing warming; evaporation and precipitation that make places dryer and wetter respectively and clouds that can block both sunlight from thermalising in the climate system and long wave surface cooling. These are all independent and not subject to mass balance. The models can create and destroy atmospheric water as needed because there is no continual mass balance of atmospheric water. Clouds can form without water. Precipitation can occur without changing the mass of water in the atmosphere. .Likewise evaporation can occur without changing the mass of water in the atmosphere.
Model have very limited relationship to the physical world. All models can be reduced to a black box with a CO2 knob linked to temperature. Change the CO2 knob causes the temperature to change – they are really that simple; extrapolating the trend observed in the last few decades of the 20th century. None of the models even agree on the current temperature, but most have the same relationship between the CO2 knob and temperature.
Climate models are destroying the credibility of computer modelling. They are a truly sad joke on the entire world; maybe with the exclusion of China. Their FGOALS models has the lowest sensitivity to the CO2 knob.
This chart should have been attached.
Only the abstract available, but would like to know what their data was on salinity.
“Observed multidecadal changes in subsurface temperature and salinity resemble those simulated, indicating that anthropogenically forced changes in salinity are probably enhancing ocean heat uptake.” Resemble?
“would like to know what their data was on salinity.”
My best guess is the ARGO buoy fleet. They take salinity data along with temperature. I know of a few expeditions back in the day, where they used sample bottles to retrieve samples from depth. The ARGO record is short and sparse. For the rest of the historical record, “sparse and incomplete” barely begins to cover it.
“probably”? Wish I had been allowed to use that word in my lab reports.
“Observed multidecadal changes in subsurface temperature and salinity …” were used to tune the models! They damned well should “resemble those simulated.” Unless I’m missing something.
“Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content: Seasonal, Yearly, and Pentadal Fields”
How they grow their salinity changes for the next 200 years is unknown. They use 1% annual PPM increase and an initial 1.9K° TCR.
I assume /sal has salinity data: “17. sal/65 2020-02-19 17:05:33″
From the above article:
Nahhh, simple not possible! I was assured many years ago, over a period of many years by AGW/CAGW “scientists”, that the science was settled on the subject of
global warmingclimate change.
Discovery of new mechanisms that influence the rate of global warming is thus simply not acceptable.
What good match between models and observations “over the last few decades”?
The models match observations over the last few decades well. Well, at least the NASA/NOAA/HadCRUT adjusted, corrected, homogenized, Global Warming Enhanced version of the last several decades. The models are tuned with many parameters set to match the “finished product” temperature record. Then they “hindcast” the past to show how well they have done.
It is the forecasting bit that they have so much trouble with.
This will all be irrelevant after Biden’s Executive Order (#14008) takes full affect. This is designed to cure climate change — but only after the government commandeers more and more land and water resources — a very simple solution for every problem you can think of … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWjWaMfY-I
Given there is no such thing as “climate change”, proving it is “moderated” by an enhanced hydrological cycle is quite a feat.
This is just more of the “Dog Ate My Global Warming” excuses and fudge factors.
This sounds like an experiment that started with the assumption that “something us hiding all the global warming, but what?” instead of “what does sea water do when there’s more warmth in the atmosphere?”
They’re making excuses for the lack of warming again…..
So you mean Mother Nature can take care of herself?
I believe that makes Climate Alarmists, Misogynists.
“The difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys.” And their longer legs. That’s about it. Models are just expensive toys.
Models have longer legs, too.
Sure, the heat is just hiding, the models were spot on 😉
Leftist hacks need to start coming up with excuses to explain the global cooling that is about to start once the PDO/AMO ocean cycles reenter their 30+ year cool cycle in a few years.
I’m sure there will be many more computer-model based papers showing CO2 induced global warming can also cause global cooling..
I can’t wait to see these…
After they institute their draconian measures to save the world, the cooling cycle will kick in and they will say: “See, …it worked!”
And blowing a whistle keeps the pink elephants away too.
I’ll be satisfied if we can just consign Renewable Energy to the dustbin of history and spend the money on nukes instead.
Climatologists discover the hydrologic cycle. Next revelation: carbon-based life exists on earth. Stay tuned…
A computer model is not an experiment
It’s a mind game
Common knowledge is that the poleward heat transport works similar to a heat pipe with water as the working fluid. In a heat pipe the working fluid velocity is nearly directly related to the the temperature difference between the input and the output. The next thing that will be discovered is that wheels have to be round to work properly.
Did they happen to check the results of their model with reality?
This is solid emissions from bulls’ backsides to the highest order.
The variation in salinity across the surface in the image simply shows the high evaporation zones where salinity is higher and the convergence zones where salinity is lower – most evaporation occurs at SST of 28C. Warmer locations are convergence zones and get more rainfall so are lower salinity. The high latitudes are net precipitation so also less saline.
In locations with high evaporation, there is an upward flow of water from depth working against the conduction of surface heat downward; the surface is the warmest place. That sets the ocean thermocline.
Higher heat retained in the oceans is an indicator of lower evaporation not more. Lower evaporation slows the rate of transport of cool water in the deep channel from the poles to the ITCZ. The consequence is slight increase in temperature at depth as conduction has more time to transport heat deeper. Thermoclines are set by the rate of downward heat conduction and upward flow of cooler water.
This image shows the process reasonably well:
The high salinity regions either side of the ITCZ show the high evaporation zones. The lower salinity fingers between 500m and 1500m depth below the evaporation zones show the transport channels for high latitude water being transported to the evaporation zones.
It is invalid to claim that weather causes changes in the frequency of wildfires when an unknown but large number of them are caused by arson.
We do not have reliable measurements of “arson change” over the last few decades. Geoff S
A woman was just arrested in California and charged with starting one of the recent fires near Redding. She is suspected of actually being a serial arsonist.
She is denizen of Palo Alto with degrees in biology and chemistry.
Actually, Environmental Science. (She tutored Biology and Chemistry students though, so maybe?) I have to say, I thought your comment was sarcastic, but no.
Doesn’t even make a very good Faerie Storie – it contradicts itself too much and even a child could see through it
Get A Life boyz & girlz of Miami, dump the computer and venture outside into the real world.
Observe what water does > everywhere you see it doing anything, it is taking heat away from the surface or stopping it arriving in the 1st place
Or, get this, maybe CO2 does not cause much warming if any at all…
Or, you could create some kind of extravagant explanation why your ideas about warming are all wrong but not wrong…
When I was young I was a male model. Until the predictions proved grievously wrong.
In my little corner of the world the last 5 years have been wetter.
“ Intensified water cycle slows down global warming”
That’s what emergent thermal homeostasis looks like.
In their landmark 2016 paper, which climate alarmists are trying to airbrush to oblivion, Zaichun Zhu and colleagues found 25-50 percent of vegetated areas having a longer growing season. This is defined as “greening”. This is specifically due to CO2. By contrast, only 4% of vegetated area was “browning” with reduced growing season.
So this statement “CO2 makes wet areas wetter and dry areas dryer” is a typical fabrication-flail that just comes off the top of their heads and has no basis in evidence – indeed is flat out contradicted by the evidence.
CO2 is greening the planet, and shrinking deserts such as the Sahara. And it is specifically CO2, not warming, that is having this effect, by significantly increasing the light capture efficiency of photosynthesis (don’t you just love that word!) at the leaf level.
Last year – 2020 – Vanessa Haverd and colleagues clearly demonstrated that increased CO2 in air, not warming, is the “dominant driver” of the plant growth enhancement that is happening worldwide, to the tune of 30% since 1900, and 47% per doubling of CO2. Now that’s a carbon sensitivity that can be believed:
A) They use NOAA’s dubious “Ocean Heat Content, 0-2000 Meters” calculation where the Buoy numbers are so small, well within measurement error bounds, NOAA converted the temperatures measured in Celsius to Joules.
B) They use 1.9K° TCR in their CO₂ Forcing model, out to 200 years in the future. With CO₂ doubling at 170 years forward.
i) Their CO₂ does not show any logarithmic decline in warming.
ii) Their atmospheric CO₂ annual increase is percentage based. The First year’s CO₂ ppm increase is 4.15 ppm and increasing every year afterwards. Yet, one of their alleged findings is that humans are responsible for the CO₂ increase. Confirmation Bias!
C) The primary finding is “transient climate response would increase by approximately 0.4 K without this process”.
i) That is, temperatures would be 0.4K° higher without the ocean subducting those infinitesimal Joules temperature increases. Presumably, the 0.4K° surface temperature increase is the total aggregated 170-200 years in the future.
Summation: It appears this alleged research is to provide excuses why official temperature models run hot.
Models of one sort or another are stacked, using gross assumptions for inputs and annual growth.
Since when was a climate model an experiment?
(That’s a rhetorical question)
“a suite of climate model experiments”
Talk about an oxymoron ! These people need to be taught that a climate model is a theory, not an experiment !
How many people use a composite of browsers to surf the web? Is Microsoft Windows composed of an average of operating systems? Do they have teams of programmers creating operating systems which they then average to create the ideal operating system?
Averaging computer program models is like averaging temperatures, both are affronts to both man and nature.
Climate model “experiments”.
From the article: “Global warming from emission of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is increasing sea levels and resulting in more frequent and intense storms, drought, and wildfires.”
None of that is true.
This is great news. All we need to do now is to desalinate water to end droughts and then dump the salty brine back into the sea to end global warming.
Should be simple to do with solar and wind powered desalination plants. I wonder why politicians haven’t promoted it.