More Play Station science from the University of New South Wales-cr
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
The deep ocean circulation that forms around Antarctica could be headed for collapse, say scientists.
Such decline of this ocean circulation will stagnate the bottom of the oceans and generate further impacts affecting climate and marine ecosystems for centuries to come.
The results are detailed in a new study coordinated by Scientia Professor Matthew England, Deputy Director of the ARC Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science (ACEAS) at UNSW Sydney. The work, published today in Nature, includes lead author Dr. Qian Li—formerly from UNSW and now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)—as well as co-authors from the Australian National University (ANU) and CSIRO.
Cold water that sinks near Antarctica drives the deepest flow of the overturning circulation—a network of currents that spans the world’s oceans. The overturning carries heat, carbon, oxygen and nutrients around the globe. This influences climate, sea level and the productivity of marine ecosystems.
“Our modelling shows that if global carbon emissions continue at the current rate, then the Antarctic overturning will slow by more than 40 per cent in the next 30 years – and on a trajectory that looks headed towards collapse,” says Prof England.
Modelling the deep ocean
About 250 trillion tonnes of cold, salty, oxygen-rich water sinks near Antarctica each year. This water then spreads northwards and carries oxygen into the deep Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
“If the oceans had lungs, this would be one of them,” Prof England says.
The international team of scientists modelled the amount of Antarctic deep water produced under the IPCC ‘high emissions scenario’, until 2050.
The model captures detail of the ocean processes that previous models haven’t been able to, including how predictions for meltwater from ice might influence the circulation.
This deep ocean current has remained in a relatively stable state for thousands of years, but with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, Antarctic overturning is predicted to slow down significantly over the next few decades.
Impacts of reduced Antarctic overturning
With a collapse of this deep ocean current, the oceans below 4000 metres would stagnate.
“This would trap nutrients in the deep ocean, reducing the nutrients available to support marine life near the ocean surface,” says Prof England.
Co-author Dr Steve Rintoul of CSIRO and the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership says the model simulations show a slowing of the overturning, which then leads to rapid warming of the deep ocean.
“Direct measurements confirm that warming of the deep ocean is indeed already underway,” says Dr Rintoul.
The study found melting ice around Antarctica makes the nearby ocean waters less dense, which slows the Antarctic overturning circulation. The melt of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is expected to continue to accelerate as the planet warms.
“Our study shows that the melting of the ice sheets has a dramatic impact on the overturning circulation that regulates Earth’s climate,” says Dr Adele Morrison, also from ACEAS and the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences.
“We are talking about the possible long-term extinction of an iconic water mass,” says Prof England.
“Such profound changes to the ocean’s overturning of heat, freshwater, oxygen, carbon and nutrients will have a significant adverse impact on the oceans for centuries to come.”
JOURNAL
Nature
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Abyssal ocean overturning slowdown and warming driven by Antarctic meltwater
“The deep ocean circulation that forms around Antarctica could be headed for collapse” … yes, and I “could be” headed for winning the lottery.
Weasel-word science at its finest. And people get paid to produce this garbage.
w.
Excellent comment.
You could win the lottery if you bought lottery tickets, Willie E.
And you would know pretty soon
But dont hold your breath in anticipation..
I plan to win the lottery next week.
I had a dream about a lucky number.
I’d tell you, but I don’t want to split my winnings
My objection is not about the weasel words.
They have to be included with predictions
My objection is calling yet another very likely to be wrong wild guess of the future climate a “study” and pretending a wild guess prediction is real science
Science requires data
There are no data for the future climate
Climate predictions are data-free speculation with a century long track record of being scary and consistently wrong.
No one ever predicts an improving climate. Yet the climate has been improving since the cold, late 1600s during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum (the 1690s). 325+ years of an improving climate and not one prediction for an improving climate.
Science theories must be able to be falsified.
Predictions can’t be falsified without waiting a long time
That’s why climate scaremongering is nothing but scary long term
predictions. They are believed by leftists because they follow the phrase “Scientists say” and they are always for bad news. Leftists love bad news predictions just like children like scary fairy tales.
The trifecta of climate predictions:
(1) Scary, bad news, caused by humans
(2) The problem is worse than worse than we thought
((3) The problem can only be prevented by doing everything the government tells you to do, without question.
Richard wrote, “325+ years of an improving climate and not one prediction for an improving climate.”
Actually, Svante Arrhenius predicted an improving climate, thanks to rising CO2 levels, more than a century ago.
He was, at the time, one of the world’s most prominent scientists, having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry five years earlier. He predicted that rising atmospheric CO2 levels (“carbonic acid in the atmosphere“) due to burning coal would be highly beneficial for both mankind and the Earth’s climate. He wrote:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=arrhenius#arrhenius
History has proven him right. Unfortunately, most of today’s “climate scientists” are as bad at history as they are at science.
It helped a lot that he was from Sweden where cold weather had repeatedly led to poor harvests, near famine, disease and death in the 18th and 19th centuries. My family was almost wiped out at least twice. We Scandinavians know in our bones that cold is the real enemy.
And he later admitted that he got it wrong and “carbonic acid in the atmosphere” would not have the effect that his experiments indicated, but that always gets left out.
AFAIK, Arrhenius never suggest that CO2 would have no warming effect. However, by the time he wrote the book from which I took that quote (1906 in Swedish, or 1908 for the English translation), I believe that he had lowered his too-high 1896 estimate of the magnitude of the warming effect.
I believe one of the major drivers of the overturning current is the annual freeze-thaw of sea ice. In winter, as the sea ice freezes, it releases the salts which sink to the ocean floor and also creating Brinicles that aid in the transportation and aiding the circulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAupJzH31tc
So long as sea ice forms during winter it is far more likely the circulation will continue.
Their models likely indicate a 40% reduction in winter sea ice growth by 2050 which would a account for their reduction in current
Yes. “So long as sea ice forms during winter it is far more likely the circulation will continue.” It is the start of the Deep Warm & Cold currents.
In the seas near Greenland and Norway, the water is cold. Some of it freezes, leaving salt behind. The cold, salty water becomes dense and sinks to the ocean floor. This water is known as the North Atlantic Deep Water, and it is one of the primary driving forces of the conveyor belt.
When the conveyor belt reaches the southern part of the globe, it is driven back to the northern oceans by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Western winds are very strong in the Antarctic. They help create the intensely powerful Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The current moves a lot of water very quickly around the continent of Antarctica—about 140 million cubic meters (4.9 billion cubic feet) of water per second.
Overturning occurs in the waters around Antarctica. Overturning moves massive amounts of water. An estimated 35 million to 45 million cubic meters (between 1.2 billion and 1.6 billion cubic feet) of water per second
FAST FACT
Antarctic Circumpolar Current
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current moves 140 million cubic meters (4.9 billion cubic feet) of water per second around Antarctica. That single current moves more water than all the rivers on the planet combined. The world’s rivers move 1.3 million cubic meters (46 million cubic feet) of water per second.
My engineering textbooks had KE- 1/2 mv^2.
140,000,000 m^3 * 1024 kg/m^3 * 1^2 = 1.43 EE 11 kg-m. It has been going on for million of years, what’s is going to stop it now?
Disinformation at work: Unfortunately, the headline of this post omitted the key word “could”, which forms the very base of this scientific study.
“Our modelling shows that if global carbon emissions continue at the current rate, then….” anything we speculate can get put into a paper and get published in Nature, thats how we roll these days. A bucket full of speculative, sciency BS is the climate science equivalent to a barrel of oil doncha know?
Examining the liver of a chicken would indicate as much as a model of a high emission scenario. Another haruspice?
Climate change killed my chicken
My latest bumper sticker
Leftists will love it
Only $5
Bigger laugh if you change it to “Climate Change Choked My Chicken”!
Dunno about that but the enhanced CO2 is certain to make the meat more fizzy
“Climate change killed my synthetic wooly mammoth meatball.”
Meh. Just another fearmonger crying “Wolf, wolf!”
I don’t even bother to read the alarmism any more.
Prof. Matthew England — I remember him! He’s that “tipping point” nonsense guy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/05/how-dare-you/#comment-2814611
Prof. England predicts that meltwater from Antarctica will drastically slow the overturning current. But in the real world (as opposed to the computer model world), Antarctic meltwater is negligible. it is not even clear whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice mass. The best and most comprehensive NASA study of Antarctic ice mass trends is Zwally, et al (2021). It reports an Antarctic ice mass trend of −12 ±64 Gt/yr
That’s a fancy way of saying “approximately zero.” (12 Gt/yr = 0.1 inch sea-level change per century.)
Here’s the paper:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-balance-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-19922016-reconciling-results-from-grace-gravimetry-with-icesat-ers12-and-envisat-altimetry/0A29BAA84961428700886DCCE201912F
There’s a pretty obvious natural negative feedback mechanism which would limit the effect that Prof. England’s model predicts, if it were to start to actually happen.
His prediction is that increasing amounts of fresh meltwater from Antarctica will reduce the density of salty surface water in the Southern Ocean, causing it to sink more slowly, thus slowing thermohaline circulation. But that means his model is predicting accelerating melting of Antarctic ice — and Antarctica averages more than 40° below zero, so it is in no danger of melting from the top.
What meltwater Antarctica does produce is almost entirely from where the ice is in contact with seawater: on the undersides of floating ice shelves, and where the ice sheet & glaciers are grounded below sea-level. If the flow of relatively warm seawater from higher latitudes were to slow, as Prof. England predicts, that would reduce the melting which is caused by circulation of that relatively warm water, making it a negative (stabilizing) feedback loop.
increased meltwater → slowed thermohaline circulation → reduced melting of Antarctic ice → reduced meltwater
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Prof. England’s model doesn’t incorporate that feedback process, were it not that that, these days, doughnuts cost about a dollar anyhow.
Clarification on doughnut prices:
I made the mistake of only checking prices at one doughnut shop: At Krispy Kreme, doughnuts cost about a dollar.
I should have also checked other doughnut shops, too. It turns out that doughnut prices vary a lot.
At Dunkin’ Donuts, doughnuts apparently cost about 2.5× as much as they do at Krispy Kreme:
At Daylight Donuts, and at local favorite Duck Donuts, prices are roughly halfway between Krispy Kreme and Dunkin.
mmmm Donuts! now this is a good topic. I am working an a ‘Study’ that links donut consumption to increased CO2 which leads to CAGW. It is really amazing that nobody else has done this study and published it using the current Pal Review process. I expect I can get the Nobel Prize for my findings. 🙂 Boston Cream is the best donut ever!
“I am working an a ‘Study’ that links donut consumption to increased CO2 which leads to CAGW”
which leads to deep ocean circulation that forms around Antarctica to collapse and that will stagnate the bottom of the oceans and generate further impacts affecting climate and marine ecosystems for centuries to come. All because of your eating donuts! It’s settled science. You should panic.
I see you don’t quite have the hang of how this works:
Donuts are a carbon mitigation scheme (mechanism doesn’t matter). That way you can be paid climate indulgences for eating donuts.
Just a minute, there… are you including in your ‘Study’ the amount of CO2 in the donut ‘holes’, and how that will influence your study?
Legendary Donuts are worth the higher cost. Big, creative designs, fluffy, delicious …
Metabolically it’s poison, but oh so yummy.
Clear evidence that donuts are as predictive as climate models.
Climate-worthy donut science displayed here.
Thank you for that, Pat! 😀
🙂
Hah . Don’t get me started on donut inflation numbers .
When I was at school in the ‘70s, you could get four jam donuts for one shilling. Or (if you could carry them) 80 for £1
Now, one donut costs 50p – so around 2 for a £1…..
The alleged loss of Antarctica ice mass is equivalent to a rounding error since the 1970s. CO2 does not warm most of Antarctica. Underseas volcanoes cause some local melting of nearby ice shelves and the small peninsula. If Antarctica was melting, sea level rise, as measured by tide gauges, would be accelerating. 90% of Earth’s ice is on Antarctica, but nothing is happening there that is a danger to anyone in the next 500 to 1000 years.
Zwally knows he’s not going to get published if his ice melt calcs result is ZERO.
Prof Matthew England was also the guy who pooh-poohed the existence of “the pause” when the first iteration of these events occurred, but then when it became undeniable (even by him), he started speculating that it was caused by perturbation of trade winds or something.
Which had its origins in manmade CO2 of course.
I reckon this bloke has an annual schedule of ooga-booga climate prognoses, one of which he can release up until the year he takes retirement, and his pension income is then not reliant on publishing in the (bullshit) ‘literature’.
−12 ±64 is indistinguishable from, ‘we have no idea.’
But it pays better.
That is while they struggle to explain why Antarctica and the whole southern ocean around it refuse to warm..
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have a long established cooling trend consistent with peak sunlight moving northward.
“Peak sunlight moving northward”…that’s interesting Rick…I assume Milankovitch related…..got a reference on it ?
See RickWill’s comment and the linked pdf for more info here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/22/equilibrium-doubled-co2-sensitivity-by-observational-methods/#comment-3654485
Garbage in, Garbage out. CO2 in, garbage out. CO2 doesn’t ‘control’ anything, so no model using it can be valid.
People don’t seem to understand that there is only one molecule of CO2 in every 2500 other ‘air’ particles. And those are constantly radiating photons as long as they are ‘air temperature’. They are, if anything, a cooling influence, but a minor one in any event.
All greenhouse gases, when increasing, impede Earth’s ability to cool itself
Your “science” is claptrap science rejected by at least 99.9% of the scientists on this planet.
I guess you know better?
It is you that does not understand radiative gases. As a laser engineer, I know a bit about it. All radiative gases radiate constantly. They do not wait for a photon to be absorbed. Radiative gases can gain energy either by absorbing a photon, or by a collision with a more energetic molecule. That is EXACTLY how lasers work. A radiative gas molecule can be envisioned as a tiny, unidirectional flashbulb. And, by radiating, they lose energy. That is a cooling effect. It is understandable that you think greenhouse gases trap heat. It is the blather that is fed by media and those that have an agenda.
I once stood in a hanger where a massive CO2 laser put a 2 foot hole through steel , titanium and aluminum. the back stop for the beam was 1 mile away and was a concave structure of 40 feet thick reinforced concrete. Lasers are fun!
Was that classed as an “assault weapon” or a hunting firearm?
Lawrence Livermore laser fusion facility?
I worked on one of the lasers at Lawrence Livermore labs, in the fast breeder reactor project. My instrument measured the energy of the laser through its profile. I don’t remember that much, being in the 70’s and all, but the beam was 6 inches in diameter, and the windows were made of pure salt. You couldn’t be in the same room with it when it pulsed, because it generated x-rays. Oh, yeah and it would be ready in about 10 years…That was 50 years ago. It is STILL said ‘about 10 more years’.
jshotsky,
I spent 2 years researching with German industrial CO2 lasers. It is most impressive to watch a few inches thick of steel plate being sliced up by the invisible beam. It is even more impressive to see welding of complicated shapes into useful devices like tubes with radial fins for cooling liquids flowing through.
That was about year 2000. This beautiful technology is already highly developed and working routinely all over the world to the general benefit of society. I hope that the word “laser” will no longer be knee-jerk related to death and destruction. Geoff S
As you say the gas molecules radiate unidirectionally meaning some of the energy returns to the surface and that is heating.
Curtis & Goody, 1956: The collisional relaxation lifetime for CO₂ in an atmosphere of nitrogen at 220 K is about 15 microseconds. The radiative decay lifetime is 0.43 sec. For CO₂, the ratio of (radiative lifetime)/(collisional lifetime) = (lambda)/(phi) = 3.4×10⁻⁵ at 220 K and 1 atm pressure.
The collisional decay of vibrationally excited CO₂ (the 15 μ band) in the troposphere is nearly 5 orders of magnitude faster than the radiative decay. There is no atmospheric down (or up) radiation of CO₂ until >~74 km above the surface.
I agree with your last sentence, the energy CO2 absorbs is passed on the atmosphere through collisions. The atmosphere then radiates that energy away in the form of blackbody radiation up and down.
Both paragraphs are physically correct. The black body radiation is just the equilibrium thermal bath of the atmosphere.
Black body radiation does not heat by radiating down because the BB radiation radiates equally up. Also sideways.
That’s the meaning of equilibrium. Identical in all directions.
Up to here we have agreed on most points, but I strongly disagree with this comment. In particular the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, there is a temperature gradient and BB radiation is different at all levels. And it is this difference that allows the returning BB radiation to be more intense at the surface than at the ToA, thus heating the surface.
I don’t know if you have thought about why a temperature gradient across the atmosphere is necessary for the GHE, but it is. If there was no gradient there would be no GHE.
I am not talking about the gradient across the photon mean free path at the ToA, I am talking about the gradient from the surface to the ToA.
Black body radiation at the surface is the local equilibrium thermal bath. It does not cause heating.
The lapse rate ensures that the surface is warmer than at altitude.
In a planetary atmosphere with no so-called green house gases at all — pure nitrogen, say, or pure argon — the surface would be warmer than at altitude, because the surface is the source of most of the thermal radiation.
So a thermal gradient is present even with no so-called greenhouse gases.
The GHE is caused by the presence of infra-red active gases in the atmosphere — primarily water vapor but also CO₂. IR active gases absorb surface IR and redistribute it into the KE of the atmosphere. Atmospheric KE produces sensible heat.
The only question about CO₂is whether hydrological dynamics will adjust to dissipate the KE added by our CO₂ emissions.
No one knows the answer to that question. Climate modelers and the IPCC pretend they do so.
By definition heat is only recognized at system boundaries and there must be a temperature gradient to cause the transfer of energy. So no it is not heating.
Omnidirectionally?
The net radiation is up and down because sideways radiation is replaced by radiation from the rest of the atmosphere.
I think the bro’ meant that the molecule gathers energy (photon/ collision) until it has enough for the quantum jump needed, the relaxation of which will emit a photon. A sort of energy diode, energy only in, never out, until photon forms, implying the atom never emits pure energy, only photons.
I don’t think that is a good description of what happens. First every molecule has multiple very low energy levels representing the possible rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom. Each one of the energy levels is capable of emitting a photon. A collision with another molecule can excite a higher energy level than those currently occupied. That higher energy level can then emit a photon returning to the previous state.
IR photons have very low energy comparable to the molecule energy level. For example the energy of a photon in the center of the CO2 band, in terms we can relate to, is 1.3 10^-20 watt sec. (Image how many photons/sec it takes to radiate 390 w/m2 from the surface) As limited as they are, they can excite a molecular degree of freedom as can collisions.
“That higher energy level can then emit a photon returning to the previous state.”
Only if the radiative decay time is faster than the collisional decay time. For CO₂, it’s all relaxation by collisional decay in the troposphere.
I don’t know whether all collisions are equal and I don’t know if all excitations are equal. If rotational energy is transferred does it necessary excite a rotational energy level? What about translational energy what can that excite? At any altitude the molecules are all pretty much at thermal equilibrium so maybe there isn’t a lot of energy being transferred. At any rate we know the atmosphere radiates lots of energy.
Photons are pure energy, cilo.
Phlrrp! Planck. Need I say more?
Photons of different colour, have different energy. The photon being a quantum, that implies the photon carries energy, not is energy.
Unfortunately, to address your next accusation, we have to discuss the aether, which I know too little of to convince you…
A photon is electromagnetic energy, cilo. Ether was disproived in the early 20th century.
The aether was integral to Tesla’s philosophy. Maxwell too. What practical technology has your ‘debunkers’ left behind?
P.S. Publications like Nature have long lost their trustworthiness, relevance, even. I’ll take your word that link has pretty pictures…
Science is not philosophy. The parting of the ways became absolute when Galileo made theory subject to observation.
There is no luminiferous ether observable.
Arthur Eddington wrote the paper in Nature, published in 1925. Your airy dismissal does you no service.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’m not trying to be flippant, I merely observe. Tesla gave us AC generation, Eddington gave us… Speculations about the origin of stars,more and more of which is turning out to be unlikely. The electric grid lights my street, cosmology tells me bedtime fables describing fantasies about the pretty clouds in outer space.
I don’t think it fair to compare Tesla’s heritage to someone who worked in a field where the truth of your theories are almost completely dependent upon a ‘good reputation’.
And if Tesla believed in the existence of the aether, I shall refrain from disbelieving in it, luminiferous or not, until more understanding unfolds.
In any case, I find the existence of an aether much more likely than the existence of black holes and all those other Dark Matters…
P.S. Without science there is no Philosophy, just speculation.
Believe as you like, cilo. I’ll change my mind when the data change.
An airy dismissal of Arthur Eddington likewise does you no service.
Uhhmm…..heating, not cooling… They absorb more IR per molecule in certain bands (of course, as a laser engineer, you know this) because of their molecular cross-section, but 99.99+% of the excess is transferred by bumping into the surrounding molecules (heating)…against a background Planck’s law…
Here for you:
https://geoexpro.com/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-ix-how-carbon-dioxide-emits-ir-photons/
Very nice discussion, DMac, thanks. 🙂
I second Pat. Great discussion
Give me some of that climate change grant money and I’ll say anything … just like all those ‘scientists’ you cite. Climatology is not science. It is a cult, thanks to 90+% of the ‘climate scientists’ aka preachers who have been peddling their religion on the world.
“Give me some of that climate change grant money and I’ll say anything”… Now, now… WUWT has Principals. I come here for FACTS, thanks.
Spelling: Principles.
Geoff S
Once again you repeat a half truth and then follow it with an insult. You should learn the rest of the science before attacking others.
Those same gases enhance evaporative cooling at the surface which increases the Earth’s ability to cool itself.
The combination of both effects balances out while increasing precipitation slightly.
A little science experiment for you Richard. Take a 1 square meter insulated box with an open top and put it outside in Anchorage AK in the middle of January. As CO2 is heavier than air, take enough CO2 to fill up the box and heat it to 50C. Slowly pour the gas into the box allowing it to displace the atmospheric air.
Measure the temperature of the CO2 after it has filled the box. Go home and come back 24 hours later and measure the temperature of the CO2. Since it is a greenhouse gas it should be the same temperature as before, right?
Is it not obvious to you that the CO2 molecules are also constantly absorbing photons and kinetic energy through collisions and that is a heating influence?
Were these molecular actions different before man started burning fossil fuels? No. That heating influence has taken place for millennia. Your comment is absurd.
Collisional exchange of kinetic energy is thermally neutral.
Thank you Pat, for that reversion to reality.
Geoff S
Thanks, Geoff. Nice to see you here. 🙂
I hope you agree absorbing photons is a heating process for the media doing the absorbing. So are collisions that pass kinetic energy from one molecule to another a heating process? It is if they are not at an equal temperature.
If they’re molecules in the same gaseous bath, there is no heating. There is only redistribution of the available energy.
In discussing climate, there are a large number of rapid response channels. When CO₂ absorbs 15 μ radiation from the surface, and off-loads the energy by collision, the kinetic energy of the atmosphere increases. If nothing else changed, the sensible heat of the atmosphere would increase.
However, responses do not stop there. Increased convection in response, a small change in cloud fraction, a small increase in tropical thunderstorm activity, and other possible responses could dissipate the small increase in thermal energy.
Climate models are unable to resolve the effect of the very small perturbation represented by CO₂ forcing.
Thus far, nothing happening with the climate is outside natural variability. Evidence from deep time provides no assurance that CO₂ drives air temperature. If anything, evidence is it’s a passive responder.
If the process in your paragraph two is correct and I and I almost agree that it is, and then the processes you describe in para three happen then the result is there is no GHE. That is true because if the radiation from the surface has the effect of heating the atmosphere then more IR energy would leave the planet, not less. It would heat the planet not cool it.
The theory of the GHE requires that the added KE to the atmosphere is rapidly radiated away as blackbody radiation. There is physics that supports that action.
The whole argument revolves around those evil carbonasties radiating only down to us, not to space… because that would COOL DOWN the planet.
Before you pronounce on physics, I suggest listening to yourself when you speak. It may help you get rid of all them logical contradictions. Also, listen what others say, don’t spend your time thinking up a refutation of their first three words.
You should at least try to understand a comment before criticizing it.
The misnamed green house theory is that IR absorbing gases cause the radiative surface of Earth to be at higher altitude than it would be in the absence of an absorbing gas.
The lapse rate then causes the surface to be warmer than it would be, absent that gas,
The major such gas on Earth is water vapor. There’s no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has that effect. And climate models are unable to resolve the effect, if any, of the small perturbation of CO₂ forcing.
Small perturbations are hard to model in most models. That description of the GHE implies if I double the CO2 concentration nothing happens in the atmosphere except at the ToA, and yet we know more energy is transferred to the atmosphere at all altitudes. I believe that energy transfer is what causes the GHE and that the amount of energy reaching the ToA is the result of that transfer.
One reason small perturbations are hard to model is because they try to include feedback that they can’t model.
The small perturbation of CO₂ forcing is ~100-fold below the detection limits of modern climate models. That’s why it’s hard model — because the model can’t see it.
You realise the energy obtained by collison was robbed off of another air molecule, cooling that one down, don’t you?
Why are climastrologists incapable of thinking in three dimensions?
In the first paragraph “…could…”, in the second paragraph “…will…”, and the key word, in the fifth paragraph “…modelling…”. My MODELLING says that Willis COULD win the lottery, and he WILL if he sends me a commission (in advance, you know, just in case the modelling turns out to be fatally flawed). Thank you.
From the article: “This deep ocean current has remained in a relatively stable state for thousands of years, but with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, Antarctic overturning is predicted to slow down significantly over the next few decades.”
It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, yet the overturning did not slow down then. History says this is not something we need to worry about. We’ve been here before and the Antarctic is doing just fine.
I’ve read this type of ‘prediction’ from the climate cult for several decades now. Not a single one has come to fruition.
Exactly. We know that during the Holocene we have had many long global warming periods when trees could grow much higher up the mountain and much closer to the Poles than today is possible.
That’s because the Continents ‘sank’, or the Oceans ‘rose’… or something.
Tom,
In the paper, is evidence given to support those words ” … relatively stable state for thousands of years”?
Recall that in 1988, Mann Bradley & Hughes were not even able to show acceptably what happened to northern hemisphere temperatures for the last thousand years – Antarctic currents are probably harder to model. Geoff S
Garbage in, garbage out! Starting with false assumptions about the future only produces false predictions.
Willie Soon calls it, ‘garbage in, gospel out.’
” Deep ocean currents around Antarctica headed for collapse … ”
… Gulf Stream is headed for collapse, everything is headed for collapse… except the lack of immagination to find things headed for collapse.
The key phrase: “that under a high-emissions scenario, abyssal warming is set to accelerate over the next 30 years.”
It’s just another paper using RCP8.5-like scenarios to forecast doom.
I no longer subscribe to Nature. If anyone here has it – do they look at any more plausible scenarios? If not, this is pure Leftist propaganda.
I have been looking at the temperature response to radiation imbalance across the globe for the period that CERES Net radiation data has been available; iIn total 16 years from Jan 2007 to Jan 2023.
In that time the atmosphere over the tropical oceans has absorbed up to 5.5E10J/m^2 and the the high latitude oceans released up to 6E10J/m^2.
To put those energy absorption and releases in perspective, an area the size of a suburban building block in Australia,1000m*2, is absorbing the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb while the atmosphere over high latitudes oceans is releasing similar amount.
This is set out in the attached showing the radiation imbalance, the temperature change Jan 2007 to Jan 2023 and the temperature response to all the heat input and release. The temperature change is uncorrelated to the net heat uptake or release.
The temperature of the tropical oceans is unchanged over those 16 years. The Southern Ocean and Antarctica have cooled substantially while the Arctic Ocean has warmed a similar amount. It is interesting the Siberia in Jan 2023 was some 15C cooler than it was back in Jan 2023.
There is no connection between radiation imbalance and surface temperature. What matters is how the climate moves the energy around the globe. Clearly the globe is not warming. Some regions are cooling, the regions with the highest positive imbalance show almost no temperature change and some regions are warming. For the 16 year period the average surface temperature was down by 0.09C but Siberia appears anomalous.
So if there was some magical process for CO2 to increase the radiation retention, it is not going to change surface temperature.
RickWill, I think this has a couple of typos: “It is interesting the Siberia in Jan 2023 was some 15C cooler than it was back in Jan 2023.”
It has only been about 5 minutes; catch it quickly, and you might still have time to fix it. I think we get about 10 minutes to edit our comments.
Cult members (scientists) producing propaganda for the church of doom in it’s endless mission to convert the world to it’s “end of times” consensus dogma.
Ocean currents are the result of the earth’s rotation, not plant food, not “Green” policies and it is not dependent on how much money “Green” Rent & Grant Seeking Activists and Criminals, mostly Criminals (the CCP funded UN IPCC Et. Al.) want, or need for their new Playstation 64!
No. It’s what is currently warming the planet. Oceans distribute heat. Slowing this means a cold planet not a warm planet. The change in oceans is what is causing this warming not CO2, a trace gas. Slowing it means more energy at the equatorial region staying near the equator and causing less sunny days which limit the energy reaching the ocean. Which means a cold planet and back into the LIA and continuing the decline to deep ice age. The 2 degree warmer ocean waters (atlantification) is what has been warming the planet since 1850 not so much CO2. Hence where you are finding the warmth. The shallowing of the mixed layer has been the source of the majority of the warming seen today. When this stops, the world gets cold. It’s not the tropics that are warming.
Climate Scientists brain headed for collapsing 30 years ago, it’s now to 97% accomplished.
😀
Do we know if he dyed his hair violet ? That would explain a lot.
They keep trying to melt Antarctica….but it just keeps sitting there like the frozen waste land it has been for thousands of years. Next ….it will be a tipping point that results in the entire planet imploding upon itself….all due to man made CO2.
You could disprove this by simply studying numerous bodies of water in temperate zones throughout the world. This reminds me of the “ we’re destroying the Amazon- the lungs of the earth” hype from a few years back.
“…if global carbon emissions continue at the current rate…”
or
“The international team of scientists modelled the amount of Antarctic deep water produced under the IPCC ‘high emissions scenario’, until 2050”
I give up, which is it: ‘current rate’ or ‘high emissions scenario’?
ye gods – if only somebody, anybody, paid a scintilla of attention to ‘nutrients’ up here on dry land – none of of would be trapped in this insane bad dream.
What a load of total cobblers. Just the output of a computer model – based on a widely-derided hypothesis. Haven’t these people got anything better to do? Just a hint – try to run some experiments to test it.
Just as soon as the Earth stops spinning on its axis.
If this theory depends on global warming generated by atmospheric CO2, then what are his figures for the relationship? Whst is his ECS number? How many degrees per ppm? Tell us all. Your whole stupid idea depends on this number. What is it and where from? Wake up!!
“More Play Station science”
Very good Eric. I have been saying this for a while now. Essentially these guys are playing video games and telling us who won last night, as if anyone should care.
Eric?
I believe it was Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com who coined the term. It is not my invention.
I’ve called climate modeling video game science since at least 2013.
You are all pretty.
I stop reading at “Our modelling shows…”
Models, models, models – crap, crap, crap.
So this “research” gets you into MIT? hopeless
This could be worth several dozen miles of the high speed rail to nowhere in California if Jerry Brown was still around to mine the red flag for federal dollars. Gavin is distracted with other bad public policy expeditions for now.
Antarctic Ocean Circulation only can stop if all other circulations stop as well- or none, or all – so none.
“Our modelling shows that if global carbon emissions continue at the current rate, then the Antarctic overturning will slow by more than 40 per cent in the next 30 years…”
That’s nothing! MY modelling, based on the fact that the Antarctic ice can sublime and rise into the air to become snowflakes, suggests that in 20,000 years there will be a massive snowball hovering above the South Pole of our planet weighing about 3×10^16 tonnes….
I’m sorry but I don’t believe computer modeling should bear the term study, the term study implies observation of the real world. Computer modeling is guess work, now maybe if the computer model accurate reflects the real world over an extended period of time (without constant adjusting of the parameters to fit the real world at any moment of time), say 30 to 40 years, then a degree of trust could be earned,
I’ve been modeling Earth systems on my Vic 20 and can definitely say the planet could stop rotating when CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 616 (not to be confused with 666). Following rotation ending, cessation of the deep ocean circulation might happen between 40 and 44 years, average 42 {medium probability}. By this time both I and Prof England might be dead {high probability}.
Rrrrrrrrriiiiiight. Because that volcanism causing them is just gonna turn off because someone forgot to include it in their “””””””””””””””””””””””study”””””””””””””””””””””””.
This is just like those “models” that would have been linear progressions if they weren’t 58% fabricated data and based on falsified equations using selective unrelated inputs.
August 4th 1944 in the Black Forest: 554ppm; impossible by the IPCC’s “data” but written down by a German scientist.
Another could, might, may study. There’s no shortage of those
Carl Wunsch has said that ocean models do not converge. One might ask the authors about their ocean model. Does it converge? Does their prediction have any physical meaning? Or does it just ‘look reasonable.’?
Wunsch, 2002: “Some simple “back-of-the-envelope” calculations show the scope of the problem. Consider one example. Much of “climate” is governed by the movement through the ocean of fluid properties (temperature, salt, carbon, etc.).
“Suppose one’s model has a 1 mm s⁻¹ systematic error in the computed velocity (Lagrangian) of a fluid particle. Then at the end of 100 years, one has a 3000 km position error for that particle. In terms of where enthalpy, carbon, etc. are located in the ocean, and where and how they may re-enter the atmosphere are concerned, errors of this magnitude can completely reverse the sign of the atmosphere-ocean exchange. Do ocean models have errors of this size? I have no idea, as it seems not to have been worthy of study, because “everyone knows” the ocean is laminar and simple. F. Bryan (personal communication, 2000) has shown that the so-called POP-model (Smith et al., 2000) undergoes a sign reversal in the air-sea heat flux in the crucial area of the Grand Banks when the model resolution is shifted from 0.2° laterally to 0.1°.
“In general, ocean models are not numerically converged, and questions about the meaning of nonnumerically converged models are typically swept aside on the basis that the circulations of the coarse resolution models “look” reasonable.” (my bold)
Yet again, evidence that climate modelers do not seem competent to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
Alarmists are getting better at making claims that nobody can verify.
There needs to be a moratorium on publishing any study that deals with RCP /SSP 8.5.
As usual the “end of the world” scare is based on computer modelling. Bigger, faster computers just make these whackos more confident in their wild ideas. It hasn’t changed the validity of their analysis.
If crap like this is what I can expect from my tax dollars I think it is time to consider a moratorium on government funded studies. I am tired of my money being pissed away.
There are massive ‘leaks’ all around you.
Yes I can feel it.
Why do so many apparently intelligent university-educated folk seem to think that today’s events are unique in the long life of Earth, and that other evidence of previous events is to be disregarded since today’s man is so much more advanced than who went before? Perhaps university life is unsuited to the recognition that we are NOT omnipotent – perhaps it is that university life which needs to be reviewed, rather than accepting the views of those who are immersed in it? Perhaps this is one of those rare instances where the belief in a supernatural god could benefit us all?
Ancient people were generally smarter than modern humans. The ones with poor judgement were sorted quickly. Today, they get tenured faculty positions.
Where is the explanation for the slowing down of the overturning circulation outside of Antarctica? IF the oceans warm (for which there is zero evidence), then the edges of the Antarctic ice pack will supposedly melt nearly unmeasurably faster, which is supposed to do what, exactly? Freshwater ice melt would still be at 32 deg F/0 deg C … exactly the same temperature the edges of the ice pack are now.
It’s models all the way down.
“Our modelling shows…”
That’s all I needed to see.
1 degree of warming had no impact on this current.
But a few hundredths to a few tenths of a degree that may or may not happen over the next 40 years is going to cause a collapse.
Are these morons that desperate to be published?
But, the tipping point®… we’re really close, now.
Yes, they probably are.
They are getting really,really desperate. How the hell is a trace CO2 increase in the atmosphere going to possibly halt the circualtion of 1.35×10^18 Metric Tons of water on the surface of a roughly oblate spheroid planet with oddly shapen 30% land surface area rotating at 1,000 mph at its surface on the equator? At least the prediction is measurable over the next 30 years and no way will there be a 40% reduction of Antarctic overturning.
Still waiting on the latest data for the NASA Vital Signs Antarctic Ice Sheet page. Over the past few years, by their figues, things we stable/increasing, but no data now since November 2022. I read somewhere they were updating something in the system in the way the data is managed.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
“Our modelling shows”.
Their models are backwards in two different ways.
Their model “findings” prove nothing, they come entirely from the errors coded into their models in the first place.
“Our modelling shows…” exactly what we programmed our models to show.
All based of what temperature rise in Antarctica? Must be based upon West Antarctica with it’s abundant Ring of Fire volcanism.
This apparent travesty of research, must be an April 1st joke, pre-published on purpose to disguise it’s real purpose.
RCP-8.5 again. I thought that the UNFCCC declared that they weren’t going to use that implausible scenario any more.
But not to worry, they are consistently talking about carbon, not carbon dioxide. Nothing to see here, please keep on moving.
My models predict that by 2050 the POTUS will be an extraterrestrial. Claims that this has already happened I dismiss as mere tinfoil-hattery
“Could”, but almost certainly isn’t.
METHOD OF RESEARCHComputational simulation/modeling
————————-
Not real —
Much of this was anticipated by Jean Baudrillard, who in the early 1980s observed the predominance of fiction overwhelming reality. Hyperreality, explained Baudrillard, is a condition in which it becomes ever more difficult to “distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced postmodern societies”.
Can we say that the naked fearmongering that dominates public discussion and precludes debate about climate change is based on anything other than “the generation by models of a real without origin or reality“?
>> The Eco-Hyperreality of Climate Science – The Bellows
The scientists “modelled the amount of Antarctic deep water produced under the IPCC ‘high emissions scenario’, until 2050″
Of course they did, because if they used the scenario that most closely tracked what the climate has actually done in the last 100 years they would have predicted a big nothing burger.
They don’t require drug tests in climate science? That Koolaid ought to be tested.
Years ago I was assailed by one of this site’s serious scientists for saying I’ll take the climate alarmists seriously when they stop using conditional – might, may, could, should and can. He said I was opposing the scientific method and protocols of uncertainty.
I still hold my view on conditionals. Yes, things are uncertain, but after 35 years of intense study and modeling, I feel we should be in the “will”, “shall” and “does: phase, and in some areas “has”. But I don’t see any of that …. except in media and political headlines. You know, the last storm or heat wave was caused/worse because of climate change, while there is no statistical data to support it in even the IPCC reports.
The “conditional” arguments have been shouted loud enough and often enough now that the public and activists don’t recognize the conditional uncertainty that still exists. Yes, they keep saying we have only X mire months before it’s too late, but the warnings are not taken as serious predictions – the “will/shall” type.
Again, their feelings (and financial/political interests) don’t care for our facts.
I invited Prof. England (via both tweet and email) to join this discussion, but he hasn’t responded.