“They saw that the vast mass of water that gradually creeps northward near the surface of the Atlantic is as important in carrying heat as the familiar and visible Gulf Stream. “It was an easy calculation,” recalled Broecker, “and I was astounded by the amount of heat that it had.” The energy carried to the neighborhood of Iceland was “staggering,” Broecker explained — nearly a third as much as the Sun sheds upon the entire North Atlantic. If something shut down the conveyor belt, climate would change across much of the Northern Hemisphere.”

Additionally.

“A bit more convincing was a 1983 report, using the geochemistry of isotopes in fossils, with complex evidence pointing to “a dramatic change in ocean circulation” in the last glacial period. The deep waters of the North Atlantic had apparently grown cold and still. Scientists were being gradually pushed to think about dramatic transitions in the circulation of the North Atlantic, or even the entire world-ocean.”

And one last thing……

“”Studies of fossil shells in the cores gave clues about ocean waters in the past, with a striking conclusion. It now seemed beyond doubt that there had been shifts in the North Atlantic particularly around the end of the last ice age some 11,000 years ago — a time geologists on land had long known as the “Younger Dryas” climate shift. The entire pattern of ocean circulation had evidently changed within a couple of thousand years, or perhaps only a FEW HUNDRED”"

Whats important to me is somewhere in the past the oceans seemed to come to a rather abrupt standstill and the Earth plunged into rapid cooling…….WHY? I have put forth my explanation of why we are more likely to experience global cooling then warming.

El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…higher content of co2….means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

How are you relating CO2 and salinity here?
Why would high atmospheric CO2 indicate anything about local deep water salinity?
Why would you say that the only reason for a deepening thermocline is salinity if you knew the mechanism for upwelling?

“the oceans both absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. He says if the ocean is heated it tends to release carbon dioxide.”

That is correct since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.

Re: my confusion about your position on CO2 and water temperature
Above you also stated,

As the calculations above show there is more co2 in warmer waters thus driving the heavier saline columns downward while less co2 found in the colder waters of the south keep the the vertical saline columns stable.

Which seems to me to state that
1) warmer waters absorb more CO2 and that somehow drives heavier more saline waters deeper and
2) colder waters hold less CO2 and so by virtue of holding less CO2 keeps water columns more stable
According to your most recent statements you realize that CO2 is less soluble in warmer waters making the above statement quite confusing.
Additionally I am still unsure about the connection you have attempted to make between CO2 and salinity.
How does CO2 drive heavier more saline waters downward?
How does CO2 in the colder waters “keep the the vertical saline columns stable”?

Professor Carl Wunsch of the Department of Oceanography at MIT says….

“the oceans both absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. He says if the ocean is heated it tends to release carbon dioxide.”

Since we began talking about global warming and I was talking about global cooling I have focused on how the ocean might 1. affect CO2 and 2. How the oceans themselves would deal with co2.

Since even the lead author of the IPCC report is on record as verbally rejecting the conclusions of what is written in the report. That 15,000 scientists signed a petition to Clinton urging him to reject the Kyoto treaty. Since you can find 1000′s of scientists who do NOT subscribe to AGW…the science is not settled.

According to Professor John Christy ALSO of the IPCC, temperature in the upper atmosphere doesn’t match the expectations of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, either. According to the theory, it should be much higher than it actually is. Satellites and weather balloon data both tell us this.

I went to the NOAA site, pulled the raw data and voilla. There you have it the temperatures in the upper atmosphere have hardly risen at all.

AGW is bunk….tens of thousands of scientists get their money from green organizations and yet every soul who is opposed to AGW is paid hackeys of the Oil Industry.

AGW….The great Lie. The science is not settled and those of us who look at the facts know its not settled.

I did not say that warm oceans hold more co2. I said warm ocean atmospheres contain more co2.

Statements like,

El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…

caused me to think you were arguing that warmer oceans would be able to absorb more CO2 than colder oceans.

The arctic is a co2 sink. The tropics exhale co2 back into the atmosphere.

In no small part due to the colder water being able to absorb more CO2.
Ice does act as a CO2 sink and loosing ice does release CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fact that we have had a run up of co2 based upon industrial times is for the most part in my opinion nothing more then the saturation of the oceans and lakes that are not able to keep up with the 650 year time frame needed to deal with influxes of co2.

This sounds like an argument in favor of limiting CO2 emissions.

Well I wrote a long post with lots of links in it and its missing.

Let me answer this.

I did not say that warm oceans hold more co2. I said warm ocean atmospheres contain more co2. This is how the cycle works jeb. This is not me making stuff up. The arctic is a co2 sink. The tropics exhale co2 back into the atmosphere.

Ice is used to sequester carbon. It always has been. Whats missing in all of this is that the core samples that have been drilled show ppm of co2. Meaning that with each square measurement of Ice their is a given amount of co2.

The melting of this ice for the past 110,000 years has expelled this captured co2 back into the atmosphere. This carbon is scrubbed and rebalanced using the oceans as gigantic co2 sinks.

The fact that we have had a run up of co2 based upon industrial times is for the most part in my opinion nothing more then the saturation of the oceans and lakes that are not able to keep up with the 650 year time frame needed to deal with influxes of co2. See carbon dating techniques used to measure how long the cold, frigid deep waters have seen the surface.

Eventually as we move away from co2 burning to other forms of energy and we reduce black carbon, CfC’s and other aerosols that have much more of an adverse affect on heat retention we will see the earth moving to take care of this imbalance of co2.

Glaciation. There are no other adequate means of co2 sequestering other then glaciation. That is of course barring man made scrubbing.

I didnt realize I was writing a scientific paper in a comments section on the internet. Forgive me for trying to simplify my hypothesis into laymans terms that are easy to understand.

That is hardly the level of clarification I have requested.
In order to address what you have written I need to understand what you are trying to say. I have asked for clarification on several key points.
For instance it appears that you have conflated thermohaline circulation and surface currents.
What do you mean when you say the earth is 90% water? It is not by any measure I know of.
By what mechanism do you see CO2 increasing salinity? Is it simply the added carbonate, bicarbonate, and carbonic acid that you see increasing salinity enough to be a current driver? That seems a stretch.
Your characterization of evaporation off of bodies of salt water and fresh water obscures more than illuminates.

Considering the El Nino is still under a lot of reasearch Im surprised you would make this statement Jeb.
El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…higher content of co2….means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

In pieces,

warm water means higher content of co2

CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.

higher content of CO2….means the saline has been pushed under

No it does not. Earlier you stated that higher CO2 meant more saline water. That is also incorrect in addition to contradicting your statement above.

the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years

Because the normal upwelling has been interrupted allowing a thermocline to form.

The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

There is more than one way for water to become more dense.

When there is no El Nino event the normal coastal upwelling along the West coasts of the continents continuously brings cold nutrient rich waters to the surface. This is not due to a salinity driven process, rather it is the combination of atmospheric currents and Eckman transport moving the coastal surface waters away from the continent and colder deeper waters moving up to replace the displaced water. When an El Nino event disrupts this the surface waters are not pushed away from the continent so the deeper colder waters are not pulled up to replace them and consequently the surface water is much warmer. This has manifold effects, among them are increased local rainfall since the warmer water allows for increased precipitation and massive die offs of animals that rely directly and indirectly on the nutrients that are brought to the surface with the upwelling water.

I find it fascinating that scientists of today are absolutely convinced that never in the history of the world has our earth faced such peril as it does today

I find it odd that you think that this is what scientists are saying.

Totally forgotten in all this is that mankind will RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS around 2050-2065.

Where are you getting that figure. If true it would be ample reason to push for a carbon tax and massive investment in renewables that many are proposing due to AGW.

If we double the ppm of co2 by 2100 to 750 ppm then the story goes our reefs will abandon us and we will all starve to death.

Doubling of CO2 and the associated depression of pH would indeed be disastrous for any marine life that has a carbonate skeleton including corals and many phytoplankton and the effects of that would be dramatic on marine and coastal food webs.

The rising of co2 since 1723 to the year 2100 is in geological times roughly equivalent to 300 years of time.

What are you trying to communicate here. 2100-1723=377 in normal time. Geological time generally refers to events on the scale of 10s of thousands to 100s of millions of years.

Additionally Al Gore in his movie says if all the ice melts it will raise the ocean level 20 feet…..he shows a nice animated film showing the devastation 20 foot higher oceans will cause.

and

However….fact check….the IPCC states that the ocean will rise no more then 8 to 16 inches by the year 2100 given current rates of melting….

Two different statements. Will all of the ice be melted by 2100? If not then the two statements are not contradictory. The 20′ claim is certainly meant to be shocking, but I don’t think that he stated that sea levels would rise by 20′ within the next century as your comment seems to suggest.

These calculations show that the atmosphere connected to a warm ocean contains more carbon dioxide than if connected to a cold ocean. This is what drives the absorption close to the poles and the desorption in the tropics.

1) You added Mg (k1) to the standard carbonate system (k2, k3, k4).
My understanding is that MgCO3 also decreases in solubility with increasing temperatures. I don’t understand how its addition will reverse that trend.
2) You seem to be saying to different things here. On the one hand you say that warm oceans can hold more CO2 and then say that this drives absorption of CO2 in colder waters and desorption of CO2 in warmer waters.
Its absorption near the poles and desorption in the tropics supports my position of decreasing solubility with increasing temperatures.

Wobbles, warbles….shrug, hey the bottom line is Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down! Women, unstable? Ya don’t say!

Are you referring to the Arctic Sea Ice that is up 28.7%?

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/arctic-sea-ice-now-287-higher-than-this-date-last-year-still-rallying/

Data and top down satellite photos of the sea ice for your evidentury pleasure.

By the way, if it was truly GLOBAL warming why was Antarctica (south pole)cooling for decades? Remember the Earth’s axis is not stable it warbles.

The question becomes..How did we get 4000ppm co2 into the air and secondly……how did earth get rid of this co2 when for all intents and purposes the entire earth was a sauna during this period? How could we have cooled. Where did all this ice come from.

For the last 112,000 years our planet has actually been relatively cool given historical time references. Many think I advocate that because we have had a few relatively cool years in relation to the 1998 hot year, that means I think in the next 6 months were going to slip into an ice age.

Hardly. The CO2 scare says that by the year 2100 we will double our co2 in the atmosphere given the current levels of co2 being pumped into the air by mankind. Totally forgotten in all this is that mankind will RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS around 2050-2065. Hence the doubling of CO2 based upon the current production of man made c02 is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now the doubling of co2 is not impossible by 2100 but not because of mankind. If we double the ppm of co2 by 2100 to 750 ppm then the story goes our reefs will abandon us and we will all starve to death.

That is indeed very possible. But it will not be because of what man has done. Essentially the co2 content has been rising since 1723 confirmed by ppm core samples taken in greenland and Antarctica. The rising of co2 since 1723 to the year 2100 is in geological times roughly equivalent to 300 years of time. Based upon historical revelations that our planet has shifted in and out of Ice ages many times in this short of a time reference it is not hard for me to point to global cooling as being our biggest fear for the future….not global warming.

Additionally Al Gore in his movie says if all the ice melts it will raise the ocean level 20 feet…..he shows a nice animated film showing the devastation 20 foot higher oceans will cause.

However….fact check….the IPCC states that the ocean will rise no more then 8 to 16 inches by the year 2100 given current rates of melting….

8 inches versus 240 inches. Even 16 inches vs. 240 inches. Is there any wonder that global warming skeptics are SKEPTICAL. The proponents have to LIE about their facts to SCARE the people into acting on untruthful information.

Basically Al Gore and the AGW crowd is asking us to base policy on LIES, DISTORTIONS of the TRUTH and outright deceptions. And they wonder why the Global warming skeptics question the validity of every study they produce.

Polar bears….yeah they are all dieing right? Because of global warming. Fact Check in the last 40 years the polar bear population has increased 2x-5x depending upon what method you use in measurements.

Why the lies? Why the scare tactics? As several well known proponents of AGW have stated openly and publicly and Im paraphrasing here……”We have to scare the Bejusus out of the people or they wont act.”

So why is it that the UN and their global warming council are so adamant about AGW? Simple…they want cap and trade type policy which will shift monies from the rich, industrial nations to the poor, undeveloped nations.

Thats not a bad thing….for research shows that developed nations stabilize their populations while undeveloped nations tend to have higher then the norm birth rates. Turning the poor nations into developing and stable societies will drastically cut the birth rates of these nations, not increase them.

AGW is agenda driven and it has nothing to do with science.

Considering the El Nino is still under a lot of reasearch Im surprised you would make this statement Jeb.

El Nino….warm water phase….warm water means higher content of co2…higher content of co2….means the saline has been pushed under. The research I have seen shows that the normal thermocline during an El Nino is much deeper then normal years. The only real reasons Ive seen for deeper then normal thermocline is heavier and more dense water. Translated. Salinity.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=33395

They dont.

k2 = (Ca2+)(CO32-)

k3 = (HCO3-) / (CO32-) / (H3O+)

k4 = (CO2(aq)) / (HCO3-) / (H3O+)

These calculations show that the atmosphere connected to a warm ocean contains more carbon dioxide than if connected to a cold ocean. This is what drives the absorption close to the poles and the desorption in the tropics.

When you look at the surface waters of the frigid zones, the surface water is actually colder than the deep waters and the halocline is responsible for maintaining water column stability.

You seem confused as the the vertical maintanence of the salinity levels as underscored by the presence or lack there of of abundant co2. As the calculations above show there is more co2 in warmer waters thus driving the heavier saline columns downward while less co2 found in the colder waters of the south keep the the vertical saline columns stable.

In these regions, the halocline is important in allowing for the formation of sea ice, and limiting the escape of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. IT IS PRECISELY THIS CONCEPT that I have spoken of when I say that Mother earth cools and prevents the escape of CO2 into the atmosphere until the co2 can be broken down into her component parts.

Additionally these Haloclines are also found in fjords, and poorly mixed estuaries where fresh water is deposited at the ocean surface. As I stated it is this influx of fresh water that creates salinity issues most notably in cold water areas that see this warmer melting fresh water mix with the colder surface water causing an imbalance in vertical saline stability.

Jeb Wrote @Are you talking about thermohaline circulation or surface currents here?

Im talking about both. In addition as I stated above I did not realize that someone wanted to have an in depth scientific debate using technical terms. Jeb you should know that The combinations of salinity and cold temperatures make the water denser and cause it to sink to the bottom. Its relatively straight forward. The deepwater movement of this intensely saline rich water is of equal importance as is the surface currents. They both make up the dynamics of the ocean which allows it to do what it does.

It is also the co2 sinking of the ocean and the oceans desire to poor co2 back into the atmoshpere that mother earth covers these areas with ice and prevents the release of co2 until the situation can stabilize.

I didnt realize I was writing a scientific paper in a comments section on the internet. Forgive me for trying to simplify my hypothesis into laymans terms that are easy to understand.

In any case I think you are seriously mistaken.

Fine….Ive put forth my hypothesis of what I believe is happening….Lets hear yours.

Since the earth must maintain an ecological balance of co2, o2 and N(nitrogen)

Here by earth do you mean biosphere? The earth will do just fine with a far different atmospheric make up, the organisms living on it on the other hand…

the planet which is 90 percent water absorbs co2 into the water bodies.

The volume of the earths oceans is ~1.35×10^6 km3, given that they make up more than 90% of the earths water, let’s round that up to 2.16×10^6 km3 to make the math easy.
The volume of the earth is ~1.08×10^12 km3.
That would make the volume of the oceans ~0.00002% of the earth’s volume.
The disparity is even greater if we use mass.

The more co2 that is absorbed into the oceans the more the salinity levels change…………the more saline the heavier the water….

Are you saying that increased carbonic acid from dissolution of CO2 changes salinity enough to change thermohaline circulation in the oceans, that decreased pH due to increased carbonic acid will increase salt solubility thereby increasing salinity or do you think there is some other link causing significantly increased salinity?
In any case I think you are seriously mistaken.

This fresh water pushes heavy water deep and keeps less saline waters on the surface…El Nino is a prime example of this.

How is El Nino a prime example of the halocline dynamics you mentioned?
Neither El Nino nor the normal upwelling it interrupts are salinity driven.

Fresher water is easier lifted into the air…that is why when it rains on a tropical island the water is fresh and not salt water…

No again. The salts do not evaporate and the water does. The water is effectively distilled out of the salt water solution in the water cycle. (Rain is the distillate)

The more fresh water pushed into the ocean the more fresh water that can ascend into the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect.

Do you just mean by this that lower salinity will equate to lower boiling point?
This ignores that most of that freshwater originated in the ocean to which it is returning. In order for salinity to be effected the water must come from a new source like melting ice sheets or glaciers. The effects of that are multifaceted and include the relative albedos of ice and water near the top of the list.

Mother Earth deals with TOO MUCH CO2 by cooling.

Why the repeated anthropomorphizing? It does more to obscure than illuminate.

She cools because the super saturation of the oceans creates shifts in the ocean currents due to the salinity levels being changed via rapidly sumberging heavy water.

To be clear, are you saying that increasing CO2 will increase salinity* and that increased salinity will be great enough that will accelerate the thermohaline circulation, the so called ‘conveyor belt’ circulation, which will somehow translate into surface currents changing position and driving some type of climate change?

The more fresh water that races into the sea the faster this water sinks creating even more chaos in the oceans.

and to be clear, adding more fresh water in the form of rain and runoff, which would if mixed decrease the salinity, will speed the thermohaline circulation as well?

the warm currents that keep the northern hemisphere temperate begin being pushed southerly…studies are still ongoing as to do the currents themselves actually stop all together of slow to the point of bare movement because of the heavy water.

Are you talking about thermohaline circulation or surface currents here?
You seem to talk about surface currents and thermohaline circulation as though the two were interchangeable. Their primary drivers are different and they react in different ways.
The currents that move warm (low latitude) waters with their stored heat to higher latitudes are surface currents. For example the Gulf Stream** by bringing the heat stored in low latitude waters North moderates the climate of Northern Europe.
The density driven currents are much slower, are driven primarily by temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline), and are for most of their travel at ~3oC.

In geologic times that is a couple hundred years.

I think that you are off by a couple of orders of magnitude here.

There is more, but I have to get to work.

* by what process you will presumably make clear in answer to my above question.
** then Labrador and NAD