Maybe someone has done the math. The question is - does the larger volume of ocean water's increased heat uptake contribute to the imbalance of incoming solar radiation : outgoing heat. This imbalance is known as EEI. Why is EEI increasing? Many say b/c less aerosols. Is it larger oceans too?
I appreciate your curiosity, but please keep in mind that our active climate scientists also are curious about stuff like this. I'm confident that aerosol gurus like team members in people like @hausfath.bsky.social and @climateofgavin.bsky.social research groups have considered that.
But let's just do some BOE test calc: 1E6 sq km body of water has sea level rise of 50 cm over last 50 years. Being generous that SLR increases water coverage of land by 1 m. That makes new water body 1,001 instead of 1,000 by 1,000 so goes from 1E6 to 1.002E6 sq km. Could be sig., but I doubt it.
Putting aside that SLR differs due to bathymetry, coastal features, sfc area, westward intensification, differing regional thermal expansion, land ice melt input etc, one can do a rough estimate of avg SLR & thus volume⬆️. This can lead to estimates of potential extra sensible heat storage in oceans.
OMG, I think you get it! thanks So... do you know who's done the math? And, would " extra sensible heat storage in oceans" result in LESS energy radiating back into space?
thx for area calc. can you do volume?
cool! if you hear or see anything that addresses the issue, tag me please.
Cool!
EEI ⬆️ bc we continue to burn FF & that stored ocean energy is fluxing to atmosphere. This is where the atmospheric scientists go wrong. They don't take oceans into account. They see the EEI ⬆️, wonder why. If they included oceans in their estimates, their estimates would be better.
Oh never mind, you don't trust our climate modelers it seems which means this isn't a convo for me.
Just bc someone challenges methodology and assessments does not mean that person is to be dismissed. That's how science works. We challenge, argue, debate. But it's done to improve the science. I have attended some conferences where it got really heated!
That's cool. I see far too many people dismiss climate modelers' competence on social media to engage in it on here personally is where this retired earth scientist is coming from.
Um, I am pointing out problems with what they do. I'm a now retired oceanographer who did loads of modeling, loads of heat budgets for arctic ocean, calculating diffusivity coefficients. I am not adverse to models. By pointing out problems, areas for improvement, this makes the science better.
Am I really communicating so opaquely that you think I don't trust the climate modellers? I asked a question in umpteen different ways to which not a single respondent has been able to understand. How much more energy does a risen ocean hold, and if it does hold more as it rises, does that...
Jim is the one who suggested that the climate models have not been accurate. Bluesky does not make it clear to people in a convo who is being replied to I often forget.
The reason why many models have issues is bc they don't incorporate the oceans adequately. We now see more and more reports of: effects are worse, impacts underestimated, things changing faster. Why? Bc models are inadequate. When oceans are included, models improve. PIK group produce best models.
I'm a whole less focused on predicting climate change than I am on trying to convince people to mitigate against as much global warming as they possibly can manage.
That's commendable. However, there's this pesky thing called thermal inertia (which the oceans have loads of). What we're experiencing now is the result of GHG levels of 15-20 years ago. The current effects won't be experienced for another 15-20 years. Lag effects, major annoyance....
Is the inertia thing the reason why warming won't stop if we ended emissions, or "net-zero"?
Yes, sadly all of the scientific knowledge clearly indicates that we need to build up a massive carbon capture and sequestration circular economy in order to pull greenhouse gases out of our polluted atmosphere and surface waters.
not a likely scenario I'm afraid
Unfortunately, yes. Sometimes called pipeline warming. A pipe is full of hot water. Even after it's no longer being heated, the tap has to run for some time b4 cooler water comes out. That's what's happening w climate system. It will take many centuries for the heat in oceans to stop diffusing ➡️atm
When we reach net-zero warming will stop. It’s important to stress this because it provides a solid foothold to work and organize towards. But it has to be true carbon balance. CDR after that could bring temperatures back to preindustrial levels over time—probably necessary to save coastal cities.
Yes, I replied to him thinking it was you earlier.
... decrease the amount radiated back out into space. therefore the whole EEI thing. whatever.... It's totally moot, but for another day.
According to estimates that atmospheric scientists have made, aerosol reduction results in atmosphere warming by 0.42 C over 100 years. Aerosol, though a factor, is not main factor. Given that specific heat of water is 4x > than air, ⬇️ aerosol will have very little, if any, impact on ocean temps. 1.
Biggest impact will be observed right at air-water interface. (Why we measure air temps at 2m height, not right on surface). It still comes down to stored energy in ocean which is now at ~5.4E23 J (>=540 ZJ. 1 Z is 10^21). As long as GHG are burned, this will⬆️. We are measuring heat fluxes .... 2.
From oceans to atmosphere. The oceans have been saving our bacon. No longer. That energy debit is being repaid, called in. EEI is in the oceans. Oceans are actual driver of climate. 3/3
How much the heat absorption of our waters might be reduced by the warmth (lower dT) already absorbed by our surface waters scares me in terms of what rate of warming we might experience in our atmosphere. I'm sure modelers have looked into closely though, don't get me wrong.
I understand that the oceans are releasing more energy to atmosphere because they have absorbed most the excess, and therefore have more to give. Because the earth as a whole is absorbing more than it emits, the EEI, how much of that is attributed to the ever-larger mass of energy storing ocean???