And each of these regimes leads to very different ocean (and ice) flux as a result of very
different ocean physics.
Not exact matches
It may sound a bit nitpicking, but water sloshing in a bathtub is a gravity wave, water height in the
ocean varying on decadal or longer scales must be totally
different physics.
Setting aside the effects of the deep
ocean, etc, — ie just using a single unified reservoir's heat capacity — and using only fast feedbacks (I didn't introduce any slow feedbacks anywhere in this particular series of comments), the expectation based on
physics is that each delayed response T curve (each of which must correspond to a
different value of heat capacity, for the same ECS) must have a maximum or minimum when it intersects the instantaneous response curve (my Teq value)-- maximum if it was below Teq before, minimum if it was above — because it is always going toward Teq.
The weakening of the Walker circulation arises in these models from processes that are fundamentally
different from those of El Nià ± o — and is present in both mixed - layer and full -
ocean coupled models, so is not dependent on the models» ability to represent Kelvin waves (by the way, most of the IPCC - AR4 models have sufficient oceanic resolution to represent Kelvin waves and the
physics behind them is quite simple — so of all the model deficiencies to focus on this one seems a little odd).
The
physics of warming water already in the oceas, land ice melt, and transfers between
ocean and land will play
different roles - they are not expected to contribute in the same proportions as the planet warms.
My post on the cool - skin layer of the
ocean hyper - links to 3
different papers on the topic, and those three papers cites numerous others in support of the
physics, math, and observations involved.