Let’s compare two possibilities by a back-of-envelope calculation.
(1) Is it due to a reduced heat transport of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)?
(2) Or is it simply due to the influx of cold meltwater as the Greenland Ice Sheet is losing ice?
The latter is often suggested. The meltwater also contributes indirectly to slowing the AMOC, but not because it is cold but because it is freshwater (not saline), which contributes to the first option (i.e. AMOC decline).
AMOC heat transport
For that we take the AMOC flow rate times the temperature difference of 15 °C between the northward upper branch and southward deep return flow to obtain the heat transport.
17,000,000 m3/s x 15 K x 1025 kg/m3 x 4 kJ/kgK = 1 PW (1)
(Here, 1 PW = 1015 Watt and 4 kJ/kgK is the heat capacity of water.)
An AMOC weakening by 15 % thus cools the region at a rate of 0.15 PW = 1.5 x 1014 W and according to model simulations can fully explain the observed cooling trend (2). Of course, this slowdown is not only due to Greenland meltwater – other factors like increasing precipitation probably play a larger role, but the impact of Greenland melting is not negligible, as we argue in (3).
Greenland ice melt
Here we start by taking the Greenland mass loss rate into the ocean, times the temperature difference between the meltwater and the water it replaces. Note we are interested in the longer-term temperature trend over decades over the region with the meltwater properly mixed in, not at some temporary patches of meltwater floating locally at the surface.
Total Greenland mass loss has been on average 270 Gt/year for the last two decades (4).
Most of that evaporates though, and what ends up in the ocean of this, according to a recent study by Jason Box (5), is around 100 Gt/year, about 30% of which in form of ice and 70% in form of meltwater.
100 Gt/year = 3000 tons/second – that sounds a lot but the AMOC flow is more than 5000 times larger.
Assuming the ice and meltwater runoff occurs at 0 °C and replaces water that is 10 °C (a very high assumption corresponding to summer conditions and not the long-term average), the cooling rate is:
3,000,000 kg/s x 10 K x 4 kJ/kgK = 1.2 x 1011 W
So in comparison, the cooling effect of a 15 % AMOC slowdown is over 1,000 times larger than the direct cooling effect of the Greenland meltwater.
For the part entering the ocean as ice, we must also consider that to melt ice requires energy. The heat of fusion of water is 334 kJ/kg so that adds 900 tons/s x 334 kJ/kg = 3 x 1011 W.
So it turns out that those suggesting that ‘cold’ meltwater might cause the cold blob in the northern Atlantic are doubly wrong: if we talk about the direct impact of stuff coming off Greenland, than ice is the dominant factor and the energy that’s required to melt the ice. But both the direct effect of meltwater and of icebergs entering the ocean are completely dwarfed by the weakening of the AMOC (regardless of whether we take the numbers of Box et al. or other estimates). And Greenland’s contribution to that is not because the meltwater is ‘cold’, but because it is fresh – it contains no salt and dilutes the saltiness of the ocean water, thereby reducing its density.
As an additional observation: the cooling patch shown above often vanishes in summer, covered up by a warm surface layer – just when the Greenland melt season is on – only to resurface when deeper mixing starts in autumn. Which again supports the idea that it is not due to a direct effect of cold meltwater influx. Also compare the temperature change directly at the Greenland coast, where the meltwater enters, in the image above.
Finally, some have suggested that the cold blob south of Greenland has been caused by increased heat loss to the atmosphere. That of course is relevant for short-term weather variability – if a cold wind blows over the ocean it will of course cool the surface – but I do not think it can explain the long-term trend, as we discussed earlier here at Realclimate.
References
1. Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. (2017) Atlantic meridional heat transports computed from balancing Earth’s energy locally, Geophys. Res. Let. 44: 1919-1927.
2. Caesar, L., Rahmstorf, S., Robinson, A., Feulner, G., & Saba, V. (2018) Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation, Nature 556: 191-196.
3. Rahmstorf, S., J.E. Box, G. Feulner, M.E. Mann, A. Robinson, S. Rutherford, and E.J. Schaffernicht, 2015: Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature Climate Change, 5, 475–480, doi:10.1038/nclimate2554.
4. NASA Vital Signs, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
5. Box, J. E., et al. (2022), Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise, Nature Clim. Change, 12(9), 808-813, doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01
Perhaps it is the vortex effect raising deeper ocean waters to compensate for the summer melt of all of the above impacts of global warming.
The only problem is that the heat transport into the Arctic doesn’t seem to be declining – at least according to recent measurements at Svalbard where the heat transport is increasing significantly:
“Increased ocean heat transport into the Nordic Seas and Arctic Ocean over the period 1993–2016”; Takamasa Tsubouchi, Kjetil Våge, Bogi Hansen, Karin Margretha H. Larsen, Svein Østerhus, Clare Johnson, Steingrímur Jónsson, Héðinn Valdimarsson; Nature Climate Change, vol. 11, 2021; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-00941-3; online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00941-3 (08.15.2022)
What puzzled me about science is that often a discussion was going on which theory is the right one, when in reality several theories had been the right ones and contributed to a trend/event etc. together.
But I’m really curious when this riddle will be solved…
All the best
Jan
It is caused by the actions of methane hydrate.
I reckon these two are anticorrelated, i.e. the AMOC transport toward the cold blob area, and the heat transport from there to the Nordic Seas. We have a Master thesis showing this but not yet submitted to a journal.
Stefan,
Here is our research on this topic, which might be of interest to you and your student.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021JC017511 [ Mechanism of the Centennial Subpolar North Atlantic Cooling Trend in the FGOALS-g2 Historical Simulation by Fan, Lu, and Li, JGR-Oceans, 2021 ] in which we found that
” in the FGOALS-g2, both the AMOC slowdown and the reduced meridional heat transport explain a limited portion (less than 50%) of the cold blob sea surface temperature anomaly trend. Overall, complementing existing studies that attribute the cold blob to an AMOC slowdown, our results suggest that additional processes, including subpolar gyre circulation and a synergy between the atmosphere and the ocean, are at work in the formation of the cold blob.”
See my explanation to another poster (early January) why you could have cold blob off Greenland and at the same time – unaffected, or increased heat flow along Norway and into the Arctic.
Alternative climate textbook editor Sterling Burnett has moved to simplify this complex question with a map of the Western Hemisphere that entirely redacts Greenland Iceland Great Britain,Scandinavia, Antarctica and the Black Sea.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/12/heartland-geographic-special-exposes.html
Hr Rahmstorf
Rahmstorsfs Blaupunkt, Hamborgs point of wiew on the worlds maps
(I have wondered for a long while whether it is just Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt or something real and to be taken for serious.
If to be taken serious, it must also have a natural explaination, and I have tended to believe in freshwater from the increasing meltoff of the Grønland Glacier,…. that covers the warm and highly saline Gulfstream water, that also travels through that area.
Its consequenses for the temperatures in the northeast atlantic and “norwegian stream” are obvious and possibly dramatic.
Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt is quite threatening because of that.
I look after the Mackerel and bluefin Tuna fisheries in the area, that is clearly increasing, entailing warmer waters. Grønland suddenly had their first, sudden, and record mackerel fisheries. a few years ago.
Then we must look after the Barents sea ices and especially Severnaya Zemlya that is suddenly ice free in recent years
The discussion, and what peo9ple may suggest to all theese things, will be interesting
@ Stefan says: – ” The key question thus is: what explains this cold blob? ”
ms: — Somebody forgot to close the fridge door…every time I defrost my fridge I see the same symptoms. A large cold puddle forms on the kitchen floor.
The powerful, unstoppable and constant transport of energy from the tropics to the poles takes place almost exclusively via the element of water. There is no other element better suited to absorbing, transporting, distributing and dissipating thermal energy. Not only the huge masses of water that move the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents, but also the transport of water vapor and clouds through the atmosphere are involved in this transport service.
The loss of tropical, low clouds but also higher climate gas concentrations are mainly responsible for the fact that the amount of energy to be transported between the tropics and the poles should actually increase. Even the southern hemisphere, which absorbs much more energy than the NH, contributes to the fact that our northernmost refrigerator (Greenland / Arctic) is melting away.
Certainly, the “cold blob” and slowdown of AMOC and thermosiphon is more of a worrying signal, reflecting the rapid, high rate of warming in the Arctic region.
My home recipe for getting the “arctic fever” under control consists, in addition to the global reduction in climate gases — (which unfortunately is currently out of stock in pharmacies) —, in cold calf wraps for the Sahara, the subtropics and all the land area up to at least the ~50th degree of latitude.
~ 4-6000 km³/y of artificial irrigation for a revegetated Sahara (14 million km²) and spread over 50 million km² of global agricultural land would be an amount of energy dissipated upwards through evaporation & clouds, which then makes the amount of energy transported horizontally towards the poles much more efficient.
It makes a big difference whether this amount of heat energy arrives on the top of Greenland glaciers in the form of snow or in the form of cooled down hot air. with rain.
6000 km³ is also approximately the accumulated amount of evaporation capacity that has been lost annually over global land surfaces since ~1750 (back to 10000 years BC) due to human land use change and the loss of evaporative landscapes.
Increasing greenhouse gases and a global relative humidity drop of ~1.3% mainly explain the “cold blob”.
methane hydrate
@Andrea Silverthorne
You can run absorber fridges on methane, but how does methane cool the water south of Greenland? Do you have a full sentence or link to explain?
Interesting. “Climate models have increased in complexity and spatial resolution since IPCC’s 2001 report. None of the climate models contributing to the IPCC’s 5th model intercomparison (CMIP-5) show a shut-down of the AMOC, but most still show a slow-down, which is greater with a faster rate of global warming. What such changes to the AMOC means for regional climate and climate prediction is still a topic of active research.” https://rapid.ac.uk/background.php
One other and contrasting development, though, so far seems to be that Europe is heating up at twice the speed of the average for the rest of the globe. Very strange indeed, but maybe having something to do with the general tendency with the global heating for lesser precipitation and thus more and often severe drought over all continents, in Europe strengthened by it’s position just to the north of the Sahara and the northwest of the Middle Eastern deserts, when the subtropical highs are spreading northwards in the northern hemisphere. Especially the Middle East seems to be heating up very fast indeed.
Stefan, while you have correctly dismissed atmospheric cooling of the sea surface as a source of the long term SST trend south of Greenland seasonal cooling may have accelerated since your 2018 discussion here.
The North Atlantic has always been rough in the winter, but only in the last few decades has real-time imagery of wave amplitude and SST become universally available :
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-75.00,0.00,409
Millions at sea and ashore view it daily, at the opening of the page they use to zoom in to navigate, or view their local weather.
Is there a product that can be used to integrate the area, amplitude and duration of high velocity wind fields in the seas south of Greenland?
I am curious because of the non-linear relationship of wave amplitude , total sea surface area and heat transfer , and the coincidence of high values of each in the extreme sea states arising from the >100 kph winds imaged on many or most days in animated Earth data south of Greenland and the Denmark Strait.
At present the angry red streaks on the linked map correspond to V> 120kph, and wave amplitudes in excess of 14 meters, which is to say the sea state is some two orders of magnitude more energetic than the annual norm.
Sure, I also use that website regularly. The thing with atmospheric changes including the winds is: are they a result of the cold SST, or the cause of the cold SST? The analysis by Halldór Björnsson of the Icelandic weather service mentioned in that blog post has shown it to be the former, but since this is not in the peer-reviewed literature we are planning to redo this analysis.
@Prof. Rahmstorf says: –
“The thing with atmospheric changes including the winds is: are they a result of the cold SST, or the cause of the cold SST? ”
ms: .—- Hello Stefan! Here is another (perhaps novel) explanation as to why the cold blob is exactly where it is.
On this figure:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/N-Atlantic-topo_%28de%29.png
you see a map on which the region in question can be assumed to be at the lower, middle edge. . The cold blob is formed there by the confluence of 3 important deep channels, which bring together the heavier deep water at ~53°N / 35°W and extend to the surface.
The region is also one of the most cloudy of the seas and is mostly under the influence of the low pressure of the Iceland low, which, in conjunction with the Azores high, mainly determines what is happening in the North Atlantic and Western Europe.
However, the air pressure contrasts are subject to larger fluctuations, the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The pressure difference is described with the NAO index. It is always positive when both the Icelandic low and the Azores high are particularly strong.
All water entering the Arctic Ocean must pass under the cold blob, making the region one of the geographic locations that resists global warming.
The total amount of arctic deep water that forms depends not only on the Gulf Stream flowing in from the west, but also on the amount of water flowing through
– Bering Strait,
– the discharge of Canadian & Siberian river systems,
– precipitation,
– melting glaciers & permafrost
/ – minus increased arctic evaporation caused by sea ice loss and temperature rise of ~3°C.
Should the AMOC slow, thereby raising tropical Atlantic SST, the excess energy there will cause equatorial trade winds to strengthen in the eastern Pacific, forcing vast amounts of warm water & energy down under into the western Pacific.
East Pacific cold deep water is upwelling (La Nina).
To the extent that interests you, Stefan, please comment on how these observations might connect to similarities in the onset of what is commonly called the Younger Dryas Ice Age.
Few among us realize heating of the atmosphere likely played some role in Earth’s last major ice age.
And, In my own experience during seven years of recent climate change-related political activism, I never once failed to get peoples’ attention in public presentations when I said this.
Most people (not climate scientists, after all) assume the last ice age happened a very, very long time ago — say, in human pre-history, or maybe in the age of dinosaurs. But I know differently. So, connections between our climate in 2022 and the melting of polar ice fields 11,500-ish years before present are a source of near-daily interest (and alarm).
I will state the obvious — many climate scientists suspect a massive melt-water event in polar regions preceded a catastrophic stalling of the AMOC, and that was followed by the roughly 500-year Younger Dryas — but please take it from there. (Or not!)
Paul Roberts: “ how these observations might connect to similarities in the onset of the Younger Dryas Ice Age.”
won’t the similarities be of the apples and oranges variety? There is no giant freshwater lake from melting parts of the half of the continent scale glacier – ready to swoosh in and stop the AMOC in its tracks?
Piotr
There are 2 such enormeous freshwater lakes to be conscidered in relation to the younger dryas.
1, Lake Agassiz in America, with “lake district” myriads of smaller lakes and pools further in the landscape. Freshwater lakes and pools get filled up and grow over rather soon in geological time and do entaill the youngest landscapes.
River meanderings also takes dozens and hundreds of thousand years to grow large, and fail where the landscapes are young.
By those measures, one can see and judge for oneself with google maps and earth.
The lake Agassiz sudden runout through the Makkensy river does not match in time.
2 the Baltic sea still intact. that ran out via Vänern and out by Gøteborg, and also to the enormeous glacial river delta south of Hamburg and via Friesland and Doggerland to the north sea …….did not collapse that suddenly.
But, what rather matckes very well in time with Younger Dryas is the last, and really very enormeous outburst of the Eiffel vulcanism. And further maybe in the bay of Napoli.
I would look after that first, as the americans not only suggest Lake Agassiz, but also asteroide impacts fror Younger dryas.
By the way Paul Roberts, …
“Most people (….)assume the last ice age happened a very , very long time ago-… maybe in the age of dinosaurs”
Really?,… not me, and not here where I live.
Because the large and small fossile marks in the landscape are rather obvious when you first learn to see it, But you really also ought to have seen the fresh terrain marks up to a really large huge and old fameous glacier…. and compare that with obviously similar marks in the lowlands, and what comes freshly grinded up from the sea where rocks are hardly weathered.
Then Glaciers and ice ages are really very practical also. As for instance, I did collect finely flotated grinding powder in all grades in a creek up to the fameous Nigardsbreen where I also could see for myself the end- morraine from the fameous LIA down at Nigard that was taken by the glacier then., And easily dated by the very different thickness of humus downside and ubside within just a few steps. I found the book stories of http://www.Nigardsbreen in http://www.Jostedal to be rather plausible.
Well, we were learnt about it, but it was troubble with Darwin and Creation and the age of the world even at the University all up to ww1, when SIR Arthur Eddington , the man who understood the sun, could explain it by Einsteins E = mC^2 and hydrogen to helium fusion. First then, possible Darwinistic and geological timescales became physically and naturally plausible, practical, and…… useful in everyday life. Such as : How old is that stone? That Mountain? that clay? that continental shelf? that Moon?
And further, how old is that lake? that River? and did it allways look that way? Are there remaining marks of anything else having happened during all that time?
By a reaqlistic timescale, both gardening and geochemistery any work with wild and natural materials, clears up very much better.
And you must learn to think in potencials of ten. and think a bit logarirmic also.
A minimum of amateur archaeological and paleontological interest I must say. … should be awakened on physical geography. in public school.
I am having a peaceful and smooth relation to the IPCC because of all this.
Thus to my wiew, those ice ages are very practical.
I mostly agree. There is a body of literature linking the Younger Dryas to meltwater influx from the melting glacial ice sheets.
Rahmstorf
Look at the Eiffelmvulcanism that happened / took place at the same time. Whereas the catastrophic outflows of Lake Agazzis and the Baltic sea hardly matches in time.
Several major events known as the “LIA” little ice age also correspondv clearly with known, Islandic major Laki and Hekla- vulcanism.
How ist it about a combination: Melt water, ice floating southward and AMOC in connection with aerosols?
Since we are talking about a very limited geographically phenomenon – the explanation would have to be
equally spatially specific. The aerosols are not – if anything I would expect LESS aerosols over the Blob than over surrounding areas , which WARMED.
Sure, but then one of these appears to be the by far dominant factor…
@ Stefan Rahmstorf
What makes me suspicious and makes me call it Rahmstorf Blaupunkt, (that I hope is very irritating),….
…….is that it looks rather unique special on the worlds maps. And hardly given any plausible natural explainatrion exept for climate cathastrophy…. which is too vulgar and cheap
I am not unaquainted to maps and data, and look out for errors and “artifacts” all the way and all the time.
Rahmstorfs “Blaupunkt” then looks quite…….. suspicious.
I do not say that it is unreal, but if real, then it is really sensational also, and will come into the books as Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt by his name..
There ought to be 2 orv 3 further bluepoints that seem to be of the same class elsewhere in the world if it is natural and no observational or data display artifact, and I find nothing . that is obviously similar.
Rainforest in Brazil, Yes, but there are similar allthougth smaller rainforests in Congo and on Borneo and even Indochina also… thus Rainforests are natural, and real. It is as easy as that.
And deserts….Yes, they do have their occurances and their causes on the worldmap. They are real.
And Glaciers,.. They have their causes and morphology.
But Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt looks rather suspicious and peculiar to my ideas and habits.
I have had it so many times, it suddenly looks like a Nobel Price within reach for me,…, that did not keep. It was disqualified by Reality by my own closer research.. SIC! Science won this time also.
Paul Robert has a suggestion above, that it may be due to fierce western arctic winds with high waves in the area. Then is to be examined if theese winds have increased consciderably in the relevant period when that water has rather been cooling down. And next, what do the ARGUS buoys say about vertical temperature and saline prohiles and eventual changes of that in recent years.
Of course the blue blob is not “mine”, it has a long trail in the peer-reviewed literature since this 2010 paper by my colleagues from Bremen:
M. Dima, and G. Lohmann, “Evidence for Two Distinct Modes of Large-Scale Ocean Circulation Changes over the Last Century”, Journal of Climate, vol. 23, pp. 5-16, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli2867.1
And we have discussed it many times here on Realclimate, just use search term “AMOC” in the blog’s search field. It also shows in parameters other than sea surface temperatures such as ocean heat content, and over other time periods e.g. the trend since 1900, and I have by now a sizable collection of blue blob images on my hard disk. Maybe I should make a post here some day with a selection of such graphs!
Hr Rahmstorf
Thanks for replying so kindly to an intensionally irritating formula.
I try and lokk and dig further and find that the mentioned Blaupunkt is also a fameous sub- polar, oceanic gyre rotating anti- clockvice and coming stronger in winter. Wikipedia states further that sea currents normally moove outwards in such systems. That means, cool deep sea water will come up, in an “upwelling” situation..
And the gulf stream and north atlantic stream crossing east in that area will not go under it, but rather mix with it and get cooled by it.
The next gyre in the area is the Sargasso gyre discovered by Columbus, that mooves clockwise and under a high pressure with dangers of loosing proper sailing winds for several weeks and running into clogging seaweeds.. Entailing salty tropical water that sinks and currents are running into the gyre center.
Then I would suggest that the recent remarkiable cooling in that fameos, mentioned Blaupunkt is increased tendency of deep water coming up together with increasing storms in the Danish and the Davis street.
I looked after the AMOC, and Wikipedia says there is not agreement as to whether or to what extent it has been weakening or will weaken.
Wikipedeia to be taken allways with a grain of salt,
But I red from Bjerknessenteret that to their surprize, the Norwegian stream has rather not weakened and not cooled in recent years.
They have also published finding of an obvious but weak steady Gyre anticlockvice, west of Helgeland, east of Jan Mayen, and north of Island in the Norwegian sea..
The quite extreme temperature development on Svalbard and in the Barents sea in recent time entails clearly that even more warm water from the Atlantic is coming into there.
When we look at it, we see that the Beering street is too narrow and too shallow, so most of all that water into the polar ocean must go out again in cooled down form on deep water in the Fram- street and the Danish street. Which is also orthodox theory.
I am curious because of the non-linear relationship of wave amplitude, total sea surface area and heat transfer, and the coincidence of high values of each in the extreme sea states arising from the >100 kph winds imaged on many or most days in animated Earth data south of Greenland and the Denmark Strait.
Evidence for Two Distinct Modes of Large-Scale Ocean Circulation Changes over the Last Century
caritafoundation.world/environmental/
To show that the frequent occurrence of strong winds and extreme sea states was responsible for a 25 year cooling trend, you would have to show that their frequency has increased over the cooling area for that period, while meanwhile decreasing in the surrounding regions that aren’t showing cooling. The magnitude of the increase would have to be large enough to explain the cooling.
Let me start by saying I know nothing abut ocean currents…..
but surely if the AMOC reduced by, say, 15% then that wold cause cooling along the main northern current along the coast of Norway not just the branch that heads south of Iceland.
KW: “) Surely if the AMOC reduced by, say, 15% then that wold cause cooling along the main northern current along the coast of Norway not just the branch that heads south of Iceland”
Quite the opposite. The ocean surface currents are driven by prevailing winds and/or by thermohaline circulation (THC)). In the latter case: the air off Greenland cools the water , while the forming sea ice – adds salt to the surrounding waters – low T and high S makes for a super dense water that
sinks toward the bottom and pushes the water already there toward Antarctica and then into Indian and Pacific ocean – i.e. drives the Great Conveyor Belt. AMOC is the N. Atlantic part of this Belt
The surface water that have just sunk off Greenland – have to be replaced – like the water in the bathtub that will start moving once you pull the plug from the sink-hole.
Gulf-Stream is driven by the combination of both mechanisms – winds and sinking. Gulf Stream splits into two branches – Western going toward Greenland where the sinking is important part of the current-driving force, and Eastern where it is not..
If the sinking weakens – then you have a cod blob off Greenland – the water still gets very cold, but no longer salty – stays at the surface, thus the observed cooling of waters off Greenland,
Waters in the Eastern branch are not driven by AMOC, but – so they not affected.
So, not only it is possible to have colder water off Greenland, without cooling off Norway, but actually it is something to be expected. Or even warming there – if the air temperatures off Norway warm as a result of global warming and/or if ocean at lower latitudes warms and the Gulfstream brings warmer waters north.
So you are saying the cool blob is causing the AMOC slowdown, rather than the AMOC slowdown is causing the cool blob?
How did you infer it from my post? The cold blob is a symptom, NOT the cause. The cause is the increased the melt-water from Greenland. As result , as described above: “ the water still gets very cold, but no longer as salty – so it stays at the surface“
I think my confusion has come from the fact that the definition (and map) of AMOC varies enormously.
The graphics I have mostly seen (again I don’t know much about currents) is that the bulk of the AMOC heads up past Norway with a smaller offshoot heading west below iceland. This cartoon is fairly representative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation#/media/File:OCP07_Fig-6.jpg
Sometimes (e.g. here https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/amoc.html) it all heads north and there is nothing west bound south of Iceland.
Still more have no northward component and all heads west and then sinks., e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Thermohaline_circulation.svg
I know these are simplistic graphics but if we are to understand changes of approximately 15% then surely we would have a better baseline
From your comments, after re-reading correctly, you are suggesting the third path is the reality. This certainly would answer my question about no change to the northern route as there is effectively none.. I am sorry for my misunderstanding
Piotr
I have looked closer to it.
That Blaupunkt Blueblob southeast of Grønland is not a site where cool water sinks down. On the contrary, cool water from the depths is up- welling there. Just see, the map shows red warmth all around including up to the east grønland gacier meltoff.
It is a sub- polar up- welling cold water gyre.
Common current orthodoxy tells of a deepwared main stream current from the arctic ocean running out on deep water trough the Fram and Danis street and down into the atlantic west of the main oceanic ridge.
the fameous Rahmstorf Blaupunkt also rotates anti- clockvice. and surface currents spread out from the center.
This clears up a lot of further paradoxes.
We must not be confused by the colours on the maps, that are artificial. They do not entail centigrades or absolute temperatures. They entail delta T, where the surface waters have warmed up or cooled down in recent years and decades. Thus it rather says peculiar change of chill currents.
Korr: deepwater..
Carb:, Jan .7″That Blaupunkt Blueblob southeast of Grønland is not a site where cool water sinks down.”
It would have been surprising if it did: it would have meant that there are no-surface currents in the area. There are – hence they bring the surface water to the location of deep water formation. The brought water water gets further cooled toward the freezing point and with the ice-formation increasing S – gets dense enough to sink. The water that sunk is no longer transported further south ( at the surface).
Now, with less sinking – less of this super-cold water flows south. That’s why you don’t see negative anomaly at the site of formation (since in winter the water gets there still as cold as it was in the past), but you one downstream of there – i.e. in the Cold Blob.
Piotr: Correction, to my Jan 8 (?) post: The opening of the last paragraph should have read:
“Now, with less sinking – more of this super-cold water flows south.”
Piotr
That is an old discussion. We learn in school that Norway is warm enough due to the Gulf stream, so in order to treaten us, tell rumors of the gulf stream cooling down now.
I have heard that all my life and Rahmstorf adds to theese exsistencial threats against us.
As far as I can see now, that Blueblob mixes into and cools the northern crossatlantic and further norwegian stream,…. that obviously remains warm enough however.
As chill seems to come mainly from the deepwater stream from the arctic ocean east of Grønland, we can ask, what is being cooled less and further south now?
Maybe that is even worse.
But, as Svalbard and the Barents sea sets records on global warming and there is rain outdoor here where it ought to be snow, maybe that blueblob is rather to our advantage, as a negative feedback to global warming here locally. where we have enough of it.
We must think of secuiring and defending the highmountain ande subarctic flora and fauna. The blueblob seems to contribute to that.
Schneelöckchen in Januar Hr Rahmstorf , that is unheard of, beat that.
So maybe I begin to like Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt after all.
And Hyse, Schellfisch. Islands national fisch English Haddock. Is plenty in the southern Barents sea..
I begin to like the traditinal wild Gadidae much better than the farmed salmons.
Carbomontanus.
Your idea seem to be look first at possible natural causes for the northern atlantic ocean cold blob. Your idea seems to be that the cold blob is just the result an ocean gyre and they have upwelling cold water from below.
Its true that some of the ocean gyres have upwelling cold water from below, but the cold blob has got about 1 degree colder since 1900 so something is changing what is going on with the cold blob. It could be the AMOC transport system slowing or the greenland ice melt (as per the article). There are other possible explanations I came across but I don’t know if they are well supported by the climate community:
“Increased storminess may give rise to North Atlantic’s ‘cold blob'”
“While climate change is making much of the world warmer, temperatures in a subpolar region of the North Atlantic are getting cooler. A team of researchers report that changes in the wind pattern, among other factors, may be contributing to this “cold blob.”
“In a study published in Climate Dynamics, the researchers report that a northward shift in the jet stream is contributing to a cooling of about .7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. Using computer simulations, the researchers found that more than half—54 percent—of the observed cooling trend is a result of increased heat loss from the ocean induced by the overlying atmosphere. Strengthened local convection—whereby ocean mixing brings cold water from depth to the surface—explains another 38 percent of the trend.”
“According to the team, storminess increased in the region because the jet stream moved northward. As a result, there are more frequent and more intense storms in this region. The increase in storminess creates a stronger heat loss from the ocean and induces stronger convection in winter, leading to cooler temperatures in the region.”
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-storminess-north-atlantic-cold-blob.html
Yes, there you are onto something thank you.
Remember that gyres and currents are having their causes and their…. “endconditions”. I am epert on that in musical wind instrument acoustics.
One deg is not so much if it is well enough away from the freezingpoint that makes a discontinuity with several other peculiar, natural and “unlinear” water effects around it,
Wec are having that weather here now so I see it every day. The birds are exelling in it
Life did origine in the ice slurries, I believe.
@Nigelj
Fluid dynamics is not my area of expertise – but neither is yours. At least Carbo has recognized that the cold blob must be cold water flowing up.
Our Norwegian climate frog should therefore put on his psychedelic diving goggles and take a deep dive with you in the middle of the cold blob (53°N 36°W).
There he maybe can prove his expertise in acoustic wind instruments – even if it’s just a snorkel.
At 2000-3000m depth you will hit right into the center of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) – which is precisely in this region that exhibits some exceptional bathymetric features.
(Don’t worry – I’m not talking about our star commentator MAR, the most boring DJ Rodger of the annual temperature chart)
https://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/
West of Ireland, midway between the coasts of Greenland and Iceland, you see a strange, probably ancient, displacement of the ridge, as if it has broken its spine there. There is the center of the unexposed, eerie cold blob.
The topography of the place forces the cold masses of water up there, maybe even with the help of some black smokers that are waiting for you in the dark crevices to boil your little frog legs.
Think of the map as the topography of a river bed in which only the heaviest water moves.
The cold blob is also the narrowest strait between the shelves of the American and Eurasian plates. East of Newfoundland, the shelf juts into the deep water current causing the 2 little SST anomalies west of the cold blob shown in Stefan’s map above.
Also consider that:
– …the Arctic Ocean is an inland ocean surrounded by land masses. More water flows out than Atlantic seawater flows in. (see above 11.01.)
– …the relative low shelfs between Europe – Iceland – Greenland – Canada act like an overflow, where in winter time very cold water (-1.8°C) is transported at the surface.
– …water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C and therefore VERY cold water is possibly transported upwards at the cold blob. The mixing, also with oxygen, is much better there than in many other Atlantic regions – also thanks to the winds you mentioned, which mainly transport cold water from Davis Strait in a south-est direction.
-Travelling water need time (0,01-1m/s). The arctic melting water of the summer season may need half a year to reach the cold blob.
– …at such special thermoclinic edge zones and topographies, internal waves that arise far below the sea surface tend to occur.
– …below the MAR, powerful energy and magma flows are transported from the earth’s core upwards to the sea floor, which can explain further upwelling there.
There has been no observations of significant slow down of AMOC in the last 30 years. IMHO the cold blob benefits the ocean circulation & arctic, hold some cold water in the region, that help the greenland glaciers to stay a bit cooler and the island lows more stable.
The real problem are the hot spots – oceanic heat waves where large regions show very few oxygen and sea life.
Macias Shurly. I do accept that the cold blob is primarily due to upwelling cold water. I did say that these ocean gyres often have upwelling cold water. I wasn’t meaning to imply that the “cold blob” was different. My only point was to decipher what might be making it colder, and I gave a reference. Thanks for the technical information. It looks good to me.
Rayhmstorf
About bluepoints and blobs on the maps, in Nature, and elsewhere……
I wrapped myself together and managed to get longtime exposure dias- photos of both Hyakutakes comet, and even Hale Bopp at low altitudes.
And sat for a week with botanical lense rinsing out and disqualifying UFOs, until I had 3 exposures that were clean enough for peer- rewiewing.
And really got mad and upset during that week..
It is obviious that a whole industry sell their own exposure errors, false light on the lenses and in the cameras, and dirts in the darkroom as sensational UFOs,
Whereas I sat there and struggled my very best to secure any kind of clean and responsible result that could be presented and defended. Whereby nothing is to be disqualified or discarded unless explained. And was lucky to sit back with 3 of 75 exposures.
Hyakutakes, …. all cats are grey at night, but on logtime light amplifying Dias exposure, they come out with green head and violet tail. Really magnificant with green head long violet tail at Perihelion quite close to the polar star. Green and violet,….. that is typical polar light colours. Where I would suggest H2O and Oxygen in the sharp solar wind
Then Hale Bopp, down in Lagerta near to the Milky way, …. it showed to be the blue-tail fly.. near Perihelion 0.7 AU on the levels of Venus,……… obvious white dry mineral dust in the solar wind under sharp sunshine, and then a long blue straight plasma tail. Similar to the blue phase at the bottom of candle flames. That is carbon radicals at intense reaction, as when burning CO, Dicyan, or butane- flames. Cracked hydrocarbons and tars in intense reaction. with fast protons and electrons.
It showed phantastic back again on the rather analogue Dias screen, good enough for discussing chosmic chemistery. But not good enough for spectral – analysis, because we are not interettsed in the chemistery of earthly indeustrial photo chemicals.
Then I sent it fror digital scanning and paper print, and ordered “as glorious colours as possible.
Then the UFO came out.
The COMA (Cfr. comet) became absolutely white elliptic with sharp edges like a flying saucer and no natural chosmic blue- tail fly anymore.
Further with botanicalo lense we coud see myriads of absolutely qvadratic coloured glass windows all around the edge of the saucer, and behind there….. easily immagine all the Alians inside that saucer standing looking at us.
That is Method artifacts you see …. due to ditalization and atomization of rather smooth diffuse nebulous reality. The method is no longer phaenomenologically congruent to the object and to Nature.
And people are so proud of their very strong scientific methods that they bought from the experts. They even sell that as the scientific and the professional truth.
Rumorsw tell that a US american GURU had seen an UFO exactly right behind the Hale Bopp That I also found immediately through optoelectronic digital scanning and display, , that was coming to get us. And his whole congregation of followers comitted suicide on his advice.
Moral:
Be aware of data display system artifacts in combination with the desire for as glorious convincing, strengthened colours as possible, on popular events and phaenomenal things.
Re: KW: Jan 8.
1. “ you are suggesting the third path is the reality ” I don’t think I need to invoke a “third path” – ultimately, it matters whether the water goes toward the sinking area or not, The eastern branch goes past Norway and into the Arctic The rest goes toward (and in part is drawn by) the NADW formation area.- whether it goes in a straight line or does a detour before heading there – doesn’t really matter. Thus, as I explained to you and, in a somewhat different context, to Carbo- you can have more cold water south of Greenland branch, and still see no cooling, or even warming, of the Eastern branch.
2. I wouldn’t read too much into the differences between ILLUSTRATIONS of AMOC from different sources addressed to general audience – they are massive simplifications and furthermore – may represent average situation from different periods: its a moving ocean affected by moving weather systems, so the sinking does not have to have happen in the same location (and with the same relative strength) year after year – so if one of the graphs is based on the data from a different decade than the next graph – they would put the “typical” location of the sinking – and the currents bringing water toward the sinking – in different locations on the (massively simplified) map.
3. KW: I know these are simplistic graphics but if we are to understand changes of approximately 15% then surely we would have a better baseline
We don’t use these simplified graphics as “our baseline” – for that we use the actual data, as shown in the map on the very same Wikipedia webpage you referred to, namely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation#/media/File:95307main_fig4m.jpg
First, you can see that the oceans surface water does not often move in neat, narrow, river-like ways, as portrayed in simplified illustrations, so looking for a narrow exact path does not always make sense.
Second, you can see how the decrease in the AMOC can be calculated – the arrows indicate magnitude of the SLOWING of the “currents” in 1990s compared to late 1970s 1980s from each of the grid points. To obtain the % reduction in AMOC you integrate spatially the interdecadal difference in water velocity in ind. grid points. Since we integrated over large areas – it does not MATTER what exact route the water will take in a given year. For the details of methodology and data used – check the original papers.
Keith Woollard 3 JAN 2023 The flow rate of the AMOC portion that exits Greenland Sea as a deep current (I assume 200 m to ~1,000 m range just roughly) totals across the Greenland-Scotland ridge through the 2 valleys Denmark Straits & Faroe Bank Channel 3.2+2.0+<1.0 = ~5.7 Sv (I'm unclear on whether Polar Outflow 2.0 Sv also becomes part of the deep current, I think not) but AMOC flow is ~17.0 Sv so the other ~11.3 Sv (the 2/3rds majority of the AMOC push) must be overturning in the high North Atlantic Ocean at the location known as "World's greatest waterfall". I'd be interested to know what portion of the high North Atlantic Ocean overturning is because the pressure at depth range ~1,000 m to ~3,000 m there became greater than further south (causing the A = F / M push) simply due surface water from the south getting denser (colder and perhaps more saline) and what portion of the high North Atlantic Ocean overturning is because the ~5.7 Sv exiting Greenland Sea through the 2 valleys in the Greenland-Scotland ridge becomes less dense by mixing as it descends from the ~200 to ~1,000 m range to the ~1,000 m to ~3,000 m range, decreasing the pressure but increasing the flow rate (highly analogous to a step-down electrical transformer increasing current). This is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-g4_2Xwn8 There's a few "US AMOC" and "US CLIVAR" on videos like the link I gave.
nigelj 15 JAN 2023: Macias Shurly. I do accept that the cold blob is primarily due to upwelling cold water.
NIgel, your acceptance of Macias Shurly claims may be a bit … premature. Macias based his claims of cold water upwelling on this belief that the ocean is like a box of chocolates, I mean, like a rain barrel, i.e., filled with freshwater, since his claim: water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C” applies ONLY to fresh water (and only if he could keep it from freezing below 0C).
For ocean water: the colder the denser so for the same salinity “water at -1.8°C is always DENSER than +4°C“. Dense water sinks – creating DOWNWELLING, instead of upwelling. In fact it is this downwelling that drives AMOC and Global Thermohaline Circulation.
Nigel: “ocean gyres often have upwelling cold water.
There might have been a minor upwelling associated with counterclockwise circulation south of Greenland, but this would have been masked by the temperature of water masses advected horizontally and air-sea fluxes of heat.
Therefore, the presence of the blob is most likely the result of increasing meltwater from Greenland which makes the surface water fresher – and therefore less likely to sink in winter – so even super cool surface water because of this lower S, may not be dense enough to sink. In turn, the reduced DOWNWELLING means:
– weaker AMOC
– more of the cold water from winter stays around because it didn’t sink – thus cooling the water either at the deep sea water formation site, or down-current from it – when this cold water is advected by the currents – resulting in the surface-water temperature anomaly called the “the cold blob” .
Similar mechanism has been invoked to explain the Younger Dryas cooling – when the ice dams broke and massive flux of meltwater from the NAmerican icecap e.g. 1A
– may have been large enough to dilute the seawater enough to reduce or shut down the downwelling – so the very cold surface water no longer was exported into the deep ocean, and stayed at the surface causing, cooling air and causing a “hiatus” in deglaciation.- Younger Dryas period.
Piotr There is more to saltwater and icewater physics that you may not have learnt.
Freshwater has got maximum density at +4 and freezing point at 0 celsius.
In salted water, the freezing point sinks according to a molar freezing point depression constant of the given material namely water, with molecular formula rather H12O6. Only vapour is H2O
But that temperature of highest density also drops even as much and even more.
The mentioned molar freezing point depression is utillized for measuring a lot of things. Try one Mol / liter of NaCl, and the depression will be twice as high because NaCl diffuses totally into Na+ and Cl- giving 2 mols out of one.. Not all salts do that.
Then try CaCl2 and you have 3 times the depression because . CaCl2 -> Ca++ & Cl- & Cl-
But try etanol or metanol, and the depression is half, entailing that it binds together 2 Et -> Et 2. And basic for studying the molecular composition and size of things. And the dissociation grades of things
Try hitric hydrochloric sulphuric phosphoric acetic oxalic malonic and citric acid….. also.
It follows daltons law and boyles law for gases and osmotic pressures…. in icewater….
All this is very practical for science in the waters,…… and water being so practical for due science.
It actually dilutes and expands the waters so it does not cristallize that easily and has to go down to a lower temperature for that. But due to a heavier molecular content, the water density increases. Exept if you try Vodka,… that has a lower molar density, EtOH is rather a carbo- hydride, , you see.
Iso-Ton saltwater solutions is when they make no osmotic pressures over the tissue cell memranes.
Fur animal Plasma (humans) have a fameous “physiological” saltness of 0.9%. But tears are salttier, about one and a half or 2 %. Thus bathing in the mediterraneans with 4% feels a bit too salt in the eyes, whereas freshwater is too fresh in the eyes and in the nose.. But fjordwater here where I live , 1.5- 2% is absolutely perfect, you can open your eyes underwater and feel no water in them at all.
It is cell membrane voltatges that are felt, perhaps.
Carbo: Jan 17 “,i>There is more to saltwater and icewater physics that you may not have learnt.”
You seem to confuse “ never learnt” with “ not littered the discussion with a happy babbling irrelevant to the argument at hand”
And that the argument at hand is: Macias Shurly confidently correcting oceanographers, based on his claim that OCEAN water “ at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C”.
@piotr says: – ” … so for the same salinity “water at -1.8°C is always DENSER than +4°C“. Dense water sinks – creating DOWNWELLING, instead of upwelling. ”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335607252/figure/fig3/AS:799405246525442@1567604471768/Temperature-salinity-graph-showing-lines-of-constant-density-isopycnals-for-seawater-at.png
ms: — Water at -1.8°C can easily be lighter than at +15°C.
The only thing that obviously experiences downwelling here is your own brainwax.
I hope, I hope – I hope that you’re not an oceanographer, otherwise I would have to answer me the question of how one can walk across the oceans with the density of 3 neurons without sinking.
Now I understand why you don’t understand how a rain barrel works.
@carbonito says: – ” anti- clockvice gyre…and suggest that it should be named after him to my, and to Rahmstorfs honor. // It is an upcoming negative feedback to north polar warming as I can see it now.”
ms: — Are you crazy my friend ? What kind of negative feedback should that be?
Or do you also suffer from “downwelling brainwax” and conclude from this an “upcoming negative feedback”? — and hoping: ” what goes down – must come up ”
So don’t forget to put your fat bucket under the bed at night. As an honorary consolation prize, you allways can make a motley LSD-muesli out of it in the morning.
@ Piotr again:
The idea of the “AMOC” taking place by cooled and sinking water southeast of Grønland may be the worst and most confusing folklore here.
I did also believe that for a while and that gives so many extra problems- paradoxes that I did tend to disqualify the very thing and rather make it a study of unqualified research, of popular “scientists” who fool themselves and others by method- artifacts and efforts that have got less to do with reality.
But, as it comes out now, I begin to like “Rahmstorfs Blaupunkt” as an up- welling , sub polar coldwater anti- clockvice gyre, and suggest that it should be named after him to my, and to Rahmstorfs honour. , Because I even see my own advantage in that fameous Blaupunkt or blueblob now.
Think of that, it is even found by todays Bremer Hansa and my wife is from there.
It is to the advantage of our mountain flora, and even to the worlds fisheries. It is an upcoming negative feedback to north polar warming as I can see it now.
@piotr says; – “Macias based his claims of cold water upwelling on this belief that the ocean is like a box of chocolates, I mean, like a rain barrel, i.e., filled with freshwater,”
ms: — Thanks for the chocolates – they will forever remind me that you are like a 10 year old dope
too stupid to multiply the global roof area by an average amount of precipitation and to note that the amount alone is enough to reduce the SLR by 20-30% .
As a thank you, you will now get a free tutoring lesson so that you may understand before you die where up, down, front, back, right and left are. Let’s see if you’re in shape and receptive today.
The question was why the phenomenon of the cold blob takes place exactly at ~ 53°N 36°W. So you need a stable, established cause that is affecting the cold blob region year in and year out.
Go to the cold blob and – Look up ! What do you see ? Heaven ? fixed stars ?
Can you rule them out as the cause for the cold blob ? (LOL)…then look north
– but the 1000km sea surface towards Greenland has gotten warmer, just like to the right, left and behind you.
Well, dear Piotr – then the only direction that remains is to find the cause below your feet.
There has been a mountain ridge there for millions of years, perhaps even 2000-3000m high, which brings together both deep water currents from the north-west and north-east at the cold blob.
That is and remains my reasoning – and not because cold water at -1.8°C is lighter than at +4°C.
You can save your childish strategy of turning the word in my mouth for your life in the sandbox.
The coldest SST today was -1.7°C (davie strait) – while the deep water at 3-4000m is always around +4°C.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-42.51,58.75,688/loc=-62.458,59.813
There is no sweat meltwater @ cold blob – no slowing down of AMOC and no reduction in downwelling of cold water there. The cold water is pushed up through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, keeping the SST particularly cold there, before it sinks down again after being mixed on the surface.
The Irmschinger sea is mixing surface water and deep water much better than others.
Piotr Jan 16: “ Macias based his claims of cold water upwelling on this belief that the ocean is like a box of chocolates, I mean, like a rain barrel, i.e., filled with freshwater,”
Macias Shurly: “Thanks for the chocolates – they will forever remind me that you are like a 10 year old dope”
Piotr : I guess the reference to “Forest Gump” went over your head?
Macias Shurly: “[you are] too stupid to multiply the global roof area by an average amount of precipitation”
Nobody was talking here about your schemes to stop SLR with rain barrels- I mentioned your obsession with said rain barrels to indicate that whatever knowledge you may have, seems to be limited to FRESH water, since it is the FRESH WATER that reaches the max. desnity at 4C, NOT SEAWATER, as you claimed here
“[seawater at -1.8°C is lighter than [at] +4°C” (c) Macias Shurly.
Subsequently, your tried to control the damage to your credibility by saying that your claims do not depend on the veracity of your above statement. But:
1. if your ocean water density claim is IRRELEVANT to your reasoning, WHY include it in your reasoning?
2. the vertical movement of real seawater is in OPPOSITE direction than in Shurly’s Seawater – upwelling becomes downwelling. And AMOC is driven by the downwelling of polar waters,
3. you claim that
The coldest SST today was -1.7°C (davie strait) – while the deep water at 3-4000m is always around +4°C..
I can see why – having the deep water “ALWAYS around +4°C” – would be CONSISTENT with the water having max density at +4C, so the closer to the bottom the closer the temperature to 4C. As you would expect in a freshwater lake.
Except it ISN’T. From his range of “-1.8°C to +4°C” M.Shurly gives a link to the the former, even though nobody questioned _that_, and yet DOES NOT give a link to the latter, even though it was the 4C that was CONTESTED. Well. maybe he couldn’t find one. Let me help:
the potential temperature profile across the North Atlantic
I.e. If +4C WERE the max density temp. in the ocean, we would expect the deep ocean ANYWHERE in the world to be “always around +4°C“. Hmm, What is this +1C water I see near the bottom in S. Atlantic?
Is it …..denser than the water T=+4C high above it ? ““Inconceivable!” ;-)
Furthermore – despite your limiting your argumnt to the effects of temperature: “[seawater at] -1.8°C is lighter than [at] +4°C“, implies universal applicability, while in reality difference salinity in polar regions are crucial to AMOC.
AMOC is driven by dropping T and increasing S: when in winter when the temperature drops AND the S increases by the rejection of salt from the forming sea-ice into the surrounding waters – the surface water becomes super-dense (low T and higher S), sinks and drives the Global Thermohaline Circulation (of which AMOC is a part).
Melting Greenland ice by climate change reduces S of the surface waters, so EVEN with addition of S from formation of sea ice, the salinity is not high enough to make the surface water dense enough and therefore sink. With the still cold but less salty water left at the surface – this water is then advected by currents – forming our the Cold Blob.
But don’t let these stop your convictions, Mr Shurly – that you know A LOT about physical oceanography
and its others, not you, who are “like a 10 year old dope too stupid,/i>” to understand even a simple argument. Arrogance correlates with ignorance.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335607252/figure/fig3/AS:799405246525442@1567604471768/Temperature-salinity-graph-showing-lines-of-constant-density-isopycnals-for-seawater-at.png
sick puppy
macias shurly, 20 Jan: “sick puppy”
Ooo, the puppy so sick he can’t prove his words:
– [seawater at -1.8°C is lighter than [at] +4°C”
– Water at -1.8°C can easily be lighter than at +15°C (c) macias “bow wow” shurly
on a T-S diagram ?
One interesting phenomenon that can be seen from that graphic is that when two surface waters in the ocean, with the same density but different temperatures and salinities, mix together, the result is always denser and, consequently, sinks.
Yes. this phenomenon was called in original German: “Kabbelung” (1902), which made into English as “caballing” or “cabelling”. At the risk of sounding like Carbomontanous, I’ll go on a tangent and say that first version is linked to cabal, as in “to unite in an intrigue
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cabbeling#English“, probably from Hebrew Kabbalah? – the two water masses underhandedly “conspiring” to form a more dense mixture never that hides unseen in the deeper ocean … ;-)
May be important high lats ocean, where water masses with different temperatures but similar density (since both of them are at the surface) meet. And similar thing could happen
even in fresh water – which unlike the ocean water (wink, wink to Macias Shurly) has the max. density at 4C, so if you mix 3 C fresh water with 5 C one, the 4C daughter would sink below the parents.
A similar thing applies to ocean mixing or various properties, where one variable is a nonlinear function of one or more conservative properties. For instance: for ocean gases: mixing of seawater with 0C and 20C, both 100% saturated with respect to say, N_2 – produce a 10C water that is oversaturated.
In fact, one can consider using uniform properties within a box or a grid element of a model,
as a virtual form of “mixing” – a long, long, time ago I wrote a paper on the effect of averaging of surface water variables on the calculated value of ocean’s partial pressure of CO2:
1995, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 100(C4):6829-6844
1995, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 100(C4):6829-6844
That’s why I like nonlinearity ….
Dr.Pjotr
You should have asked me first. I am the autentic natives and aquainted and experienced.
the phaenomenon is www. Kavlesjø
Blame it on the WWW and 0n IT if that does not show up.
It comes from old norse or maybe even Hanseatic, also look after Sanskrit kjevle – kavle…… anything that is long,…. and rolling
When baking you have a “kjevle”
Kavlesjø is when the sea rolls up like that., still in our days.
Pjotr
Kabbelung may be Plattdeutsch and Cabbala for that is a typical insular british misconsception.
The word is a bit old and hardly used anymore, but very conventional at sea and relating societies in Norway, meaning a somehow rounded off piece of light wood… for any purpose including knocking people down,… by a somewhat unregulated occasionally practical piece of wood. But first of all for floating on water. Further in common techniques like weaving and knitting and…. baking. At mending of fishernets you have also a Kavel to keep the mesh sizes.
What is shown by Wikipedia Cabbeling is obviously borrowed from weawing and knitting, and not from Kabbala.
I se at Wikipedia, Kavl is those sphaerical green glass- balls to keep the fishing nets floating. That was done also by cork, and earlier than that by wooden “Kavler”
Then kavle- sjø is well known when the waves break and the sea goes white. Then you have white… Kavler … on the sea. The surfers on surfboards use those….large…. Kavler …. to ride on.
There you have it surely.
But it must be controlled on Island, in Sæmi- languages, finnish, ural altai, , and in Sanskrit Iranean because the word is rare.
MS said up the page: “water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C and therefore VERY cold water is possibly transported upwards at the cold blob.”
Piotr seems to contradict this account. Not so sure about this lighter claim in hindsight myself either. It would seem intuitively obvious that the colder the water the denser it would get, and I did an an internet search that shows this is a physical law. Water at sub zero is only less dense / lighter if its frozen solid because the molecular bonding changes, apparently. Any upwelling effect would just be due to the physical ocean currents, however it looks like .the cold blob is cold because of the AMOC slowing.
[Response: Ocean water density is a function of both salinity and temperature. If S=0 (freshwater), then the densest water is at 4ºC (and you can only get to 0ºC before it freezes), but if S=35 psu or thereabouts, the densest water is at the freezing point (-1.8ºC). See this chart. – gavin]
Nigel,
in addition gavin’s chart (which BTW was practically the same one I dedicated earlier, without any uptake by him, to Macias) – you can also try online density calculators – like the one by a guy I used to know: http://www.phys.ocean.dal.ca/~kelley/seawater/density.html.
As for the mechanism of fresh water reaching the max. temp at 4C – it is about the arrangement of water molecules in water. In ice it forms nice hexagonal “honeycomb” cells – since there is a lot of empty space in the middle of each cell – you can pack only so few cells in a given volume – meaning that the density of ice is almost 10% lower than the density of water (that’s why the tip of an iceberg sticks out above the water).
The liquid (fresh) water above 4C behaves as almost all substances – the colder, the denser it is. BUT after crossing 4C, the first “proto-crystals” of ice start form, so the density declines until you hit 0C where further cooling converts the liquid water into ice.
The sea water is different because ions of the dissolved salts have electrical charges that attract water molecules to them – thus disrupting the process of slef-organization into proto-crystals – hence for salt water – no max. density temp. – the colder it is the denser it gets until it starts forming ice.
If we extrapolate the temp. of max density decrease with salinity increase – the max. density for seawater at S=35 would have to be below -3.5C. The thing is that before you cool seawater that much you started forming ice (at -1.9C).
In fact the intersection of the freezing temp and max density temp. lines happens at S=24.7, which is an operational boundary between the brackish and marine waters. It is physically significant, because cooling of the fresh/brackish waters is VERY different than that of marine waters.
In fresh water in the fall, as you cool surface layer, it becomes denser and sinks, thus cooling the entire water column in the process. But after you crossed 4C the 3C water no longer sinks but stays at the surface, so all cooling is applied now only to the surface water. with its temp dropping rapidly, ice soon starts at the surface, and the thicker the ice, and with the ice a great insulator, it get harder and harder for the cold to penetrate into the water. So even in a harsh winter. the lakes should still have ~ 4C water near the bottom, which is cold but livable. And therefore we still have the fish in Canadian likes after the winter.
Ocean cools very differently – surface water cooled by air sinks, carrying with it its coldness and is being replaced by the warmer water from underneath – so to make ice you need to cool much larger volume of water and you have to cool it more since the salt depresses the freezing point from 0C to -1.9C at S=35, meaning that the insulating properties of ice kick-in much later, after much more coolness has entered the ocean.
But in real ocean things get more complicated since unlike in the world according to Macias, temp. is not the only thing affecting the density of the water, S is as well – a lower salinity may counter lower temps . In fact in high latitudes it is often the relatively small difference in salinity that are more
important than the differences in temperature, particularly that those are small in high lats. in the first place.
So here we come to our Blob. As I explained, apparently in vain, to Rain God Macias^* (^*recall Rob McKenna, the Rain God, from the Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy)
AMOC is driven by dropping T and increasing S: when in winter the temperature drops AND the S increases by the rejection of salt from the forming sea-ice into the surrounding waters – the surface water becomes super-dense (low T and higher S), sinks and drives the Global Thermohaline Circulation (of which AMOC is a part).
Melting Greenland ice by climate change reduces S of the surface waters, so EVEN with addition of S from formation of sea ice, the salinity is not high enough to make the surface water denser than the water below, so it cannot sink. The still very cold, but less salty, water left at the surface is then advected by currents to the area south of Greenland – the Cold Blob.
Piotr. Thanks for the information. Its interesting and clearly explained.. I get the basics of what you are saying, although its getting complicated. I’m WAY outside of my own areas of expertise, but I like to learn stuff and solve puzzles and challenge myself a bit.
I did post a link up the page with an alternative explanation for the cold blob. Might be of interest if you missed it.
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-storminess-north-atlantic-cold-blob.html
I wasn’t actually going to say anything more about the cold blob issue and AMOC, because Its way outside my area, but it seemed so unlikely that sea water at such depth and coldness, would be lighter than higher up.
Nigel – I have the reservation about that Laifang Li et al. paper. They may know their winds, but this may be also their problem – if you specialize in X you begin to think that X may explain a lot things outside of X. If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
To start with, they speak of different cold blobs:
1. Stefan’s map is of sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly, their maps shows air temperature anomaly, Yes, the air temperature would be affected by SST, but typically not local, but from wherever the wind blows, or even by winds over land.
2. Stefan’s Blob is single-blob, centered the ocean S. of Greenland, theirs is a two-blob (the second one being mainly over Davis Strait, but extending over land – part of Greenland, N. Labrador, and Baffin Island)
Laifang Li explain the data by two mechanism:
1. ocean-atmosphere heat loss:
“54 % —of the observed cooling trend is a result of increased heat loss from the ocean induced by the overlying atmosphere”
The problem is: the air-sea heat loss has the OPPOSITE effect on air vs. water temp. anomalies – increased heat loss cools the ocean, but warms the atmosphere, so in the context of heat exchange the Cold Air blob would cause Warm Ocean blob.
2. the ocean mixing/convection effect:
“Strengthened local convection—whereby ocean mixing brings cold water from depth to the surface—explains another 38 % of the trend“.
Laifang Li seem to be confusing here wind mixing with “convection”. The first one is wind driven, the other density driven:
* the wind mixing causes:
– cooling of the ocean surface in summer: as wind brings up colder deep water to the warm surface
– warming of the sea surface in winter as wind brings up now warmer deep water to the cold surface
* the convection causes:
– NOTHING in summer, as there is NO convection in summer (the surface water is too warm and too fresh to sink).
– warming of the seasurface in winter, as more cold dense water would sink away from the surface, replaced by the lighter WARMER water pushed toward the surface.
So you may expect a bit colder summer (cooling by mixing, but no convection), but warmer winter (both mixing and convection would increase SST)
So not only we would have the opposite effect seasonally, but in each season the ocean effects
are OUT OF PHASE with air-sea heat loss effects (which caused cooling of SS in summer and warming in winter).
So their using of AIR temp. anomalies to explain mechanism behind the observed SEA temp. anomalies – is like trying explain an apple with an orangutan.
Piotr
“1. ocean-atmosphere heat loss…….”:
I don’t understand your comments on this. The research stated that the cold blob is due to increased storminess over the area. Doesn’t this just mean cold parcels of air cooling the ocean? Or maybe I’m not understanding it.
“2. the ocean mixing/convection effect:…….”
Agree with your comments.
Nigel: The research stated that the cold blob is due to increased storminess over the area. Doesn’t this just mean cold parcels of air cooling the ocean?
Not really – increased heat loss from oceans to air, must cause – increased heat gain to the atmosphere .
So IF the authors claim that 52% of variability is explained by the increased sea-to-air heat loss due to increased storminess – then COLD OCEAN blob (seen on Stefan’s map) should have been accompanied by the WARM AIR blob. The air blob in your phys.org article – warm is not.
The reverse image search identifies it as a 2015 map from NASA – so at least in 2015, the air blob had the wrong sign to explain the cold blob in the ocean via increased sea-to-air heat fluxes. Reduced AMOC, on the other hand – would explain it: less of very cold water removed from the surface by reduced thermal convection -> more of it stays near the surface, resulting in the cold ocean blob, with enough cold water at the surface explaining the cold air blob above it
@piotr says: – ” So here we come to our Blob… The still very cold, but less salty, water left at the surface is then advected by currents to the area south of Greenland – the Cold Blob. ”
ms: — Even the blindest nut who jumps around here must see in the above illustration that there are still ~ 1000 km of sea surface between the cold blob and Greenland, which have warmed up in the past years. I already explained to you 10 days ago what is up, down, front and back – that didn’t take long. Do you suffer mental diarrhea ?
Does the cold water perhaps fly out in a helicopter over the warm water to land at 56°N – or is there any talented oceanographer and weak sailor at work who picks up the cold water with his yellow submarine in Greenland and thus dives under the warmer regions .
You should urgently have your captain’s license checked – before you explain the world to God.
I see still another error of yours here, Genosse Schürle.
It aint not a coldblob. It is a cooling- blob.
With a bit others than sawdust alternatively asbestos- beton quite exactty between your ears, you should have seen that the arcic seas are drawn deep red, so also the shallow waters all the way around Grønland. Despite of the fact that it must obviously be much lower temperatures there than in that “coldblob”.
Moral:
Brains genosse Schürle, brains. How often shall I have to repeat it, Brains!
Not just sawdust or even hollowness. .
Macias Shurly: “ Even the blindest nut who jumps around here must see in the above illustration that there are still ~ 1000 km of sea surface between the cold blob and Greenland ”
Let’s put your “argument” to the test, Mr, Shurly, should we? East Greenland current in the upper layer goes ~ 10cm/s which means that it moves >1000kms in less than 4 months.
The melting of Greenland icesheets has NOT started 4 months ago.
So how do you look now with your Oh, so, brilliant zingers:
– “Even the blindest nut
– “Do you suffer mental diarrhea ?”
– “Does the cold water perhaps fly out in a helicopter”?
– “Is there any talented oceanographer and weak sailor at work who picks up the cold water with his yellow submarine”
Mr. Macias Shurly – everyone!
Nice exposition. Thanks much.
It brought back memories of 10th grade biology–our teacher was truly outstanding, and brought in elements of ecology and even limnology (the study of lakes), including the phenomenon of the (usually bi-)yearly ‘turn-over’ of lake waters.
More, if you have the time to spend:
https://www.britannica.com/science/lake/Vertical-mixing-and-overturn
Piotr
You are on deep water and thin ice here, apparently into the para- sciences.
Who, cleared this up for the most was Linus Pauling with his hydrogen bond, the -HO…H- bond that is nearly as strong in joules per mol as the OH bond.
This principle of hydrogen bonds clear up a lot of paradoxes of liquid water, Its frappingly high boiling point and freezing point despite of its very small and light H2O molecule. Compare to CO2, CH4, N2, O2 and NH3. Water boils rather in the area of gasoline , octane, and Etanol that is rather (EtOH)2 due to the same hydrogen bond of a neighbouring proton to the assymmetric and electrically polar oxygen.
Only water vapour has the molecular formula H2O following Daltons law.
Water in liquid state is rather H12O6 in thermjally flickering and diffusing reactive hexagonal rings all the way. That you can interfere with by adding sugars and swollen watery polysaccarides, that also have those slimy syrup gluing hydrophile hexagonal rings.
Forget your “protocrystals”. It is flickering hexagonal rings all the way in the liquid state.
Then at freezing those WATER-MOLECULES stabilize in cristal lattices further by the same hydrogen bonds that are very real by a paradoxically high freezing entrophy also, and form …. the ICE-MOLECULE
The hexagonal snowflake falling out of empty air is equal to the ice- molecule! ,
Take a closer look….
I repeat…!
The hexagonal snowflake star is the ice- molecule in definite form singular!
I repeat…!
: Only vapour is H2O. Water is ratyher H12O6, and ice is (H12O6)n or even (H2O)m
where n is a very high number, and m = 6n
As if Molecules are invisible in definite singular form?
Molecules being too small to be seen is old supersticion, as one can easily nsee also for oneself… that has been disprooved by science long ago allready.
But it is the same discussion as with polymers. What is the molecular size or weight of polyetene for instance? the very molecular conscept need new definitions there, and it is easier to understand it that way..
Or, you cannot say in a cubic NaCl ionic cristal lattice for instance, which sodium is related to which chloride- atom. You must look closer at the possible chemical bonds of which there are several types.
When old and rotten ices fall apart by thawing, on the lakes, or at the glaciers,…it shows that it has further re- crystallized into long hexagonal rods up to a Cm thick. And in the liquid waters between those ice- rods, nutriciant salts are concentrated and there it grows green under the sun.
It follows the law of mass action, The fameous reaction Ice water is going both ways all the time, thus by diluting the water by salt or by isopropanol, the activity of water is reduced and the ice dissolves. By taking away H2O from the air, even the frozen water evaporates. And by adding the invisible H2O Dalton- gas to the air, it frezes into large frosty white ice- molecules out of empty air.
@ Gavin Schmidt & al
We have a “pool” a fjord “polle” down here, that freezes in winter before any “pools” and lakes on land. Inside of that there is Pollevann 1/2 Moh, with freshwater.
A small creek river runs out into that fjord pool at windstill, covering the salty fjordwater with freshwater, and that “pool” is the soonest to freeze in autumn. The agricultural highschool lives next by and uses it as an example, and made us aware of it.
We have allways seen it and thought it to be in order as a special eyemark..
It is salty Hypo- limneon perhaps only 0.25 meters deep at presumably windstill. And that very thin shallow freshwater layer above the heavier salty fjordwater takes the shortest time in autumn to cool down and to freeze over. At the sea, not at the pools and lakes inland..
The deeper lakes of pure freshwater inland take much more frost and time to overwhelm turn around at +4 celsius and to freeze over.
Explain…….
It takes your Mastergrade of Real Climate, maybe even a nobel price of physical chemistery that byou haven`t got yet, to explain it……
But it is quite naturalm and common.
Because Water is a quite exeptional and exotic material.
We have it again in the oceans and in the climate, especially in the arctic and antarctic ices.
Water and salt and densities and freezing points is reaaly phaenomenal and exotic at cooler and refrigerator tempertatures from +4 to -2 celsius.
Thus, Avoid Faraday temperatures, that confuses this all It is vital to our local orientation and existance in the seasons given the climate.
But it is fameous even in the winter olympics at tricky dubious temperatures with fogs and rains and light frost. There the respective empires and nations` olympic entrepreneurs can really compeat.
” Klabbeføre” clogging firth…. the olympics have even used salted herrings under their skies.
Because It is fat and salted van der Waals forces in vater and ices compeating, in the icy slurries, you see.
The birds, Odins Ravels, like it. They assemble and come and sit and discuss it now as it is swinging around Zero celsius. They are taking a drink and a bath as soon as it gets liquid again.
And the Dogs like it. But, they get upset and very glad rather at fresh, new fallen snow at somewhat lower temperatures.
Near Zero Celcius you see, that`s what does it. There you can discuss it.
Life origined aqlso and with some salt n in that area.
@nigelj says: – ” It would seem intuitively obvious that the colder the water the denser it would get,… …the cold blob is cold because of the AMOC slowing. ”
ms: — Water has more than 70 anomalies…you won’t get very far with your intuitiveness.
The last map you will receive from me on the subject shows the Deep Current coming out of the Faroe Islands below Iceland and turning south along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge – making a U-turn right at the cold blob and turning north.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OCP07_Fig-6.jpg
If you look even more closely, you will see the same topographically peculiar underwater mountains, which I am now pressing on your blind eye for the third time.
But even Piotr’s map of the potential temperature profile across the North Atlantic confirms my thesis.
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/assets/9781315157597/graphics/fig3_2_5_C.jpg
You see a strange shoal marked there at ~ 56°N. Maybe it will help you answer the question about the U-turn and why the cold blob blobs right there and not somewhere else – after all, that was the question at hand from the whole event here – and it still hasn’t been answered correctly.
AMOC or melt water ?? – neither is the cause of the cold blob – if you ask me.
The fact that water with -1.8°C and salinity of e.g. 30 psu is even lighter than at +15°C and 36 psu was probably too much for Piotr’s shrunken brain – even if that’s exactly what’s happening in the Labrador Sea – right under his nose. But it has nothing to do with the cause of the cold blob.
If the AMOC reduces, then less heat is conveyed to Greenland, and then less ice is melted there. This is a stabilizing rather than a non-stabilizing factor because a reduction of the AMOC would translate in a reduction of the ice melting of Greenland that is claimed by Stefan to slow down the AMOC.
HAVE YOU OBSERVED ANY REDUCTION IN ARCTIC MELTING IN THE LAST 20 YEARS???
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246801331500008X
Or do you only have the flea of a famous circus director in your ear.
Macias Shurtly: Jan.24 even Piotr’s map of the potential temperature profile across the North Atlantic confirms my thesis..
No, my map discredits your thesis. Your thesis:
“water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C and therefore VERY cold water is possibly transported upwards at the cold blob.”
presumes that the ocean water behaves like fresh water in having the max density at 4C. If this were true, on my map you would see 4C along the bottom of the ENTIRE N. Atlantic. It is not,
and even if in some places it is close to 4C – its not thanks to its temperature but its salinity.
MS.” The fact that water with -1.8°C and salinity of e.g. 30 psu is even lighter than at +15°C and 36 psu was probably too much for Piotr’s shrunken brain
Until you were told by me and Gavin – you had no idea that salinity affects the density, because you ATTRIBUTED the supposed upwelling of-1.8C water SOLELY to its temperature, NOT salinity, I quote:
water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C and therefore VERY cold water is possibly transported upwards at the cold blob.” (c) Macias Shurly
Furthermore, you still have no idea that there is no DEEP water with the temperature -1.8C that UPWELLS toward the surface. The only way ocean water can get to -1.8C if it is cooled of at the SURFACE of the ocean, and the only way it could get into to the deep ocean is by SINKING, i.e. downwelling. I wrote “could” because on the way down, this -1.8 C mixes along the warmer deep water. That’s why on “my map” no deep water is even close to -1.8C. And if the -1.8C water is NOT in the deep, that there is no -1.8C to “upwell to the surface,/i>” as you claim, not mentioning why should it upwell – if it just downwelled, because it was denser than the deep water it displaced.
So your “thesis”: water at -1.8°C is lighter than +4°C and therefore VERY cold water is possibly transported upwards at the cold blob.”
proves only your ignorance of the processes happening in the ocean.
And the fact that you cannot recognize your own limitations, and instead assume that it is the other people who must be wrong , supports my observation that ignorance breeds arrogance , as seen in your posts:
“You can save your childish strategy of turning the word in my mouth [by which M. Shurly means me treating his claims … as if they were testable arguments connected with a falsifiable logic … ;-)]
– “ you are like a 10 year old dope”
– “do you only have the flea of a famous circus director in your ear,/i>”
– “probably too much for Piotr’s shrunken brain”
Macias Shurly
By their fruits you shall know them. Macias Shurly – everybody.
—
Piotr
Piotr
You must try and understand them and show compassion, that is healthy and a christian deed. We are not entitled to condemn. Do not go the Arch Angel into his business. Remember Pater Noster §6.
I see that discussion of brains and selling of their special brains (sawdust or rather asbestos concrete) up there, is typical of the worshipful soviet deputees and missionaries, seemingly an incureable situation in society.
Thus, I treat and pick on Genosse M. Schürle as I would treat any very stable and incureable east Germjan, DDR comissarius.
It is the grade that was planted there as chief engineere from the Party with P, in Cernobyl, wherefore it also blew up.
We have them here also on the 1.st of may each year.
They still walk in step under the red flags on the red square, the happy riders of the eternal dead body in the Mausoleum..
Carbo: Piotr You must try and understand them and show compassion, that is healthy and a christian deed. We are not entitled to condemn.
If Mr. Shurly can’t stand the heat, he shouldn’t start fires. And it is not me condemning him – his own actions do. I merely hold mirror to him, contrasting his ignorant claims with his arrogance toward others built on the basis of that ignorance.
For examples see my responses to his posts in this thread.
Another very good advice Genosse Schürle….
I would not believe in such maps and set on it, tell people that anyting better is prooven by that,…..
…. unless you have it sustained by an independent source.
In fact, it rather takes 3 good reasons at least ( 3 systematically independent empirical methods) before we dare to set on it and hope that it will stand… scrutiny… or in the storm, not will tilt or rattle over and fall apart.
Or before we can dare to deliver…..
It is a mastership – rule of craft and art.
It is a very general and essencial rule of systematics and science and engineering and logical argument of how to state proof.
Check- doubble check… check again…
Because, In war and in love all is permitted, there we must doubble check. But in civil life we must tripple check.
Or from LENIN if you like him better, Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser!
Saddam Hussein checked only once and ran out. General Scdhwarzkoppf checked 2 times and won… but in civil life you see………
That shown map of yours looks dubious to me. It is too accurate and well drawn by an artist in details and aspect that cannot be known for so sure or such in fine detail.
sloshing sea- currents are not that stable and precise.
The current passing Lofoten and Vesterålen makes the famous “Maelstrom..” on mideival maps drawn with sea monsters not unsimilar to yours,….. It goes further into the Barens sea, where it behaves bi- stable sloshing and alternating estwards to Novaya Zemlya and then north under the polar ice, or alternatively right north passing Kongsfjorden Kings bay and then under the ice.
I can guarantee that behaviours in the Davis street are sloshing and alternating in similar ways.
Alltogether I would call your shown map a suggestion or hypo- thesis, not even a theory. And would not dare to argue for sure by it.
I would not set on too sure diagnoses of Nigeljs brains either. Only suggest that he could need some cold water over his head , because that is healthy in any case.
But for flat earthers and desert walkers to discuss the seven seas, that is not so easy.
Hr Schmidt
We should have a state and phase- diagram of this
The freezingpoint falls along with the molar freezing point depression of water Delta T / molarity.
Your mentioned saltwater at 3.5% that is normal, thus freezes at about -1.8 celsius. But NaCl H2O evtecticum is down at -21 celsius They discuss liquidc water on Mars due to dissolved sodium perchlorate, that is even much lower than that. Andv liquid pools of extreemly salty water on Antarktis.
Quite important , salts like NaCl dissociates rather totally thus NaCl-> Na+ & Cl- 2 moles of one. CaCl2 will give 3 moles, and FeCl3 will give 4 moles and 4 times the depression.
But then again, Acetic acid and—- phosphoric acid dissociates only very poorly in water.
In that way, we can measure in the lab how the molecules are further split or rather bound together when dissolved..
What causes the freezaing point depression is that the molar volume of water is actually expanded, its molar chemical activity and osmotic pressure sinks proportional to that.
But density may increase though, because molar weight of such salts is often quite much higher than that of water.. Think of Calsium and Potassium for instance that is common in seawater. and Cloride also of the same magnitude around 40.
The fameous maxmum density of freshwater at +4 Celsius is a natural phaenomenon that also creeps downward by the adding of salt, thus we could need a full, quasi 3- dimensional map diagram of it.