Sentences with phrase «deep ocean warming if»

Maybe you should have a confab with Schmidt about the consequences of 2LoT and deep ocean warming if you don't believe me or Curry.

Not exact matches

The longevity of global warming (Fig. 9) and the implausibility of removing the warming if it is once allowed to penetrate the deep ocean emphasize the urgency of slowing emissions so as to stay close to the 500 GtC target.

The upper ocean will only warm to the equilibrium level if it stops losing heat to the deep ocean.

This can happen if something increases the amount of mixing between the (warm) shallow ocean and the (cold) deep ocean.

A lot of reseach energy is being devoted to the study of Methane Clathrates — a huge source of greenhouse gases which could be released from the ocean if the thermocline (the buoyant stable layer of warm water which overlies the near - freezing deep ocean) dropped in depth considerably (due to GHG warming), or especially if the deep ocean waters were warmed by very, very extreme changes from the current climate, such that deep water temperatures no longer hovered within 4C of freezing, but warmed to something like 18C.

Think of what would happen if you could pump cold deep water up to the surface, increasing the air / sea temperature gradient and warming the water; that would give you an anomalously large ocean heat uptake.

If the released carbon were initially in the form of methane, it would have been oxidized to CO2 within a few decades, but as CO2 it apparently stuck around, warming the deep ocean, for a long time before it went away.

«Since the ocean component of the climate system has by far the biggest heat capacity», I've been wondering if the cool waters of the deep ocean could be used to mitigate the effects of global warming for a few centuries until we have really depleated our carbon reserves and the system can begin to recover on its own.

@ 48 If your speculation is correct, I assume that another consequence would be that, if / when concentrations of greenhouse gases start to drop, corresponding reductions in surface ocean / land temperatures would take place at a much slower rate than would otherwise be the case: the surplus heat stored in the deep ocean will gradually make its way to the ocean surface, and continue to warm the atmosphere for decades, if not longeIf your speculation is correct, I assume that another consequence would be that, if / when concentrations of greenhouse gases start to drop, corresponding reductions in surface ocean / land temperatures would take place at a much slower rate than would otherwise be the case: the surplus heat stored in the deep ocean will gradually make its way to the ocean surface, and continue to warm the atmosphere for decades, if not longeif / when concentrations of greenhouse gases start to drop, corresponding reductions in surface ocean / land temperatures would take place at a much slower rate than would otherwise be the case: the surplus heat stored in the deep ocean will gradually make its way to the ocean surface, and continue to warm the atmosphere for decades, if not longeif not longer.

Even if readers don't understand the principles of oceanography it doesn't matter, the warming of the deep ocean is taking place regardless.

IF cool deep sea water were mixed relentlessly with surface water by some engineering method --(e.g. lots of wave operated pumps and 800m pipes) could that enouromous cool reservoir of water a) mitigate the thermal expansion of the oceans because of the differential in thermal expansion of cold and warm water, and b) cool the atmosphere enough to reduce the other wise expected effects of global warming?

Re Todd at # 1 and CM at # 5: Am I right in understanding that the key point is that it's quite possible for global surface temperatures to decrease even as the globe warms if more than the excess inflow of heat goes into the deep oceans?

That is, if the world stabilized at its present temperature I suppose the deep ocean would eventually get warmer, as well as other changes.

If in exceeds out and the diffential MUST exist from top to bottom of the atmosphere, then before the hotter air can migrate to the deep ocean, the daily temerature cycling will force the hotter air at the bottom into an overall equlibrium ie hotter air will rise — or more correctly since GHGs have heated the air up more at the bottom, then the sun induced daily warming will add more heat to the top, & less at the bottom to force the equilibrium — ie effectively hot air rising even if not in actualitIf in exceeds out and the diffential MUST exist from top to bottom of the atmosphere, then before the hotter air can migrate to the deep ocean, the daily temerature cycling will force the hotter air at the bottom into an overall equlibrium ie hotter air will rise — or more correctly since GHGs have heated the air up more at the bottom, then the sun induced daily warming will add more heat to the top, & less at the bottom to force the equilibrium — ie effectively hot air rising even if not in actualitif not in actuality.

Regarding the oceans: If it is not surface heat that is warming deep ocean water, what is?

Both Judith Curry and Gavin Schmidt have acknowledged that even if Trenberth is right about global warming being sequestered in the deep ocean it doesn't matter because that sequestered heat can not undilute itself to warm the atmosphere quickly — it comes out over a 10x longer period at 1 / 10th the orginal power i.e. what when in at 0.5 W / m2 in a decade comes out at 0.05 W / m2 over a century which is insignificant.

If there were no mixing in the ocean, the deep ocean would be a cold stagnant pool with a thin warm surface layer.

May I explain that empirical research must replace the «radiation - only» theory of warming; that is, it must if Trenberth's idea of heat sequestered in the deep oceans makes sense.

If the heat is hiding in the deep ocean it is not only unphysical, if true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anywaIf the heat is hiding in the deep ocean it is not only unphysical, if true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anywaif true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anyway.

However the 2nd law of thermodynamics would only be relevant if we knew the rate at which the deep ocean was warming (or whatever area of the Earth was relevant at the time) was still below the «uniform» rate.

If polar vortices are driven further and further south, drawing up warmer air from middle latitudes toward the pole and supplanting them with Arctic chill, then many nations might experience cooling, while the generally unmonitored Arctic Circle region experiences substantial restructuring of sea ice as well as surface warming and deep ocean warming too.

If you still think a cold atmosphere can warm a (much) warmer ocean surface (let alone the DEEP oceans),

If you still think a cold atmosphere can warm a (much) warmer ocean surface (let alone the DEEP oceans), I'm afraid you will believe anything as long as it has the «peer - reviewed» stamp on it.

I think that's probably wrong: if La Niña puts more heat into the deep ocean, then it's conceivable that a long sequence of La Niña events could depress the warming trend for the duration of the sequence.

If greenhouse warming shut down the globe - girdling current that sweeps heat into the northern North Atlantic Ocean, he fears, much of Eurasia could within years be plunged into a deep chill.

If the missing heat is indeed going into the deep ocean, warming it by.001 degrees, who cares?

If some of the ocean heat uptake during the last 20 years has shifted from the shallow and warm parts to the deeper and colder parts this would reduce the total thermal expansion even if the total heat flux into the oceans remained the samIf some of the ocean heat uptake during the last 20 years has shifted from the shallow and warm parts to the deeper and colder parts this would reduce the total thermal expansion even if the total heat flux into the oceans remained the samif the total heat flux into the oceans remained the same.

It is not that heat enters the oceans which could reduce an increase in GMST, it is that colder deeper water must rise to the surface if warmer surface waters are being pushed downwards.

If Arctic waters become fresh this inhibits the flow of cold arctic waters to the depths warming the deep oceans.

@ - Goldie «Next — what evidence is there for deep ocean warming and if it is occurring how does that communicate with the weather to make it extreme?»

If deep - water formation is weakened or suppressed, the deep ocean will warm up more (Knutti and Stocker, 2000).

Next — what evidence is there for deep ocean warming and if it is occurring how does that communicate with the weather to make it extreme?

If there is deep - water formation in the final steady state as in the present day, the ocean will eventually warm up fairly uniformly by the amount of the global average surface temperature change (Stouffer and Manabe, 2003), which would result in about 0.5 m of thermal expansion per degree celsius of warming, calculated from observed climatology; the EMICs in Figure 10.34 indicate 0.2 to 0.6 m °C — 1 for their final steady state (year 3000) relative to 2000.

If the earth core is somewhere in the 5,000 to 10,000 deg C range; and the surface / lower troposphere is 15 deg C; and you say that the deep oceans are at 4 deg C; and are sucking in «heat» from the warm surface waters; where the hell is all that heat piling up down there.

If the global warming signal can be masked for long periods by energy flows into the deep oceans, presumably a spurious or exaggerated warming signal can be created by flows in the opposite direction.

If somehow the extra energy had been going into the deep ocean would this mechanism of «warming» (whatever that is proposed to be?)

Of course, if the air were to be warmer than the ocean surface then evaporation would take the extra energy required from the air rather than the water and that 1 mm deep layer (0.3 C cooler than the ocean bulk) would rise to the surface and dissipate but that doesn't happen often or for long.

Any significant remainder of sea level rise, if their data is correct, would then show that there's warming in the deep oceans.

If the SST is warmer, less CO2 will be transferred to the deep ocean.

For example, if water is being warmed on the surface, and then that warmer water is moved down to the deep ocean due to trade winds during La Nina, changing equations to volume and total energy is unnecessary.»

Since it takes several hundred years for the deep ocean water to cycle up to the top, where it can be warmed up and lose CO2, it makes sense to suppose that if a warming event is initiated by something else (like changes in the amount and spatial distribution of incoming solar radiation,) the concomitant rise in atmospheric CO2 (which would enhance the initial warming) might lag behind by several hundred years.

If the ocean rise is a delayed response to past warming, this means that heat previously sunken in deep layers is now moving to upper layers... How might this happen?

«If a lot of atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed and removed from the atmosphere by algae and then transported to the deep ocean, then the atmosphere should theoretically stop warming and get cooler.»

If the ocean is becoming more energetic, then it's not unreasonable to expect this overturning to increase with the warm water forced deeper.

So, if you have a large enough influx of cold water from the deep ocean, it can cause the global temperature to decrease temporarily, even while the greenhouse component is acting to push the global temperature to be warmer.

On average they are about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere, so on average they transfer heat to the atmosphere, but this happens only at the surface so heat that has migrated below 700 meters, often considered the deep ocean, is essentially out thermal communication with the atmosphere as if had been sent into space.

If it takes over 100 - 200 years, as some estimate, to turn over the ocean the warming of the sea surface will continue to warm the deep ocean for decades even if the sea surface temp falls as long as the surface temp remains above the moving average temp for whatever the ocean turnover rate iIf it takes over 100 - 200 years, as some estimate, to turn over the ocean the warming of the sea surface will continue to warm the deep ocean for decades even if the sea surface temp falls as long as the surface temp remains above the moving average temp for whatever the ocean turnover rate iif the sea surface temp falls as long as the surface temp remains above the moving average temp for whatever the ocean turnover rate is.

If heat flow into the deeper ocean (under 300m) is driven independently of Global Average Surface temperature or the «greenhouse» effect, then we have no reason to suppose that the latter produces any «global warming» at all.

Sea - level rise caused by thermal expansion (in the range of 10 to 30 cm per century) is likely to continue for centuries (even if the warming asymptotes to values close to CEW G by 2100) because of the time required for mixing of the heating to deeper oceans.

I'm not at all sure how much deep ocean OHC can increase through that mechanism but almost certainly it happens to some degree if river runoff is warmer and we already know land surface is warming a lot faster than ocean surface.