Sea level rise causes El Ninos

It has been suggested that El Ninos increase sea level rise. This is supported by this plot from the University of Colorado:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel2/sl_mei.png

An El Nino would release warmth from the IPWP into the atmosphere. Lowering the thermosteric component of sea levels. But the plot.

Sea level rise causes El Ninos. The Pacific Ocean has a preferred temperature. If it’s too warm it will release warmth to the atmosphere.

What about sea level fall? The Pacific Ocean then tries to retain warmth causing La Ninas. This might be visualized by looking at the IPWP building warmth during La Ninas.

During La Ninas, upwelling takes some of the coldest liquid water the Ocean has and places it in an equatorial region and then as it is blown to the West the Sun warms it. And then stores it. If one were to want sea level rise, that is how you’d do it. Take stuff that will expand the most and give it lots of Sun.

La Ninas and Sea Level Rise

A simplified explanation of La Nina is, equatorial winds blow from East to West in the Pacific Ocean. These winds cause upwelling of cool bottom water which is transported West to the Indian Pacific Warm Pool. It warms along the way. The collapse of the East to West winds causes this stacked up water of the pool to slosh back to the East and we then have an El Nino. Papers have discussed La Ninas and changes in sea level rise.

Say warmed water sinks. Still contributing to sea level rise. Warm water at 10 meters or 1000 meters still occupies more volume. Now it is possible pressure at 1000 meters squeezes warm water to a lessor volume and then my whole theory may be wrong. With a strong La Nina upwelling we may have water that is easier to warm. Based on the thought that 0.0 C sea water at the equator will warm easier than 30.0 C seawater. It will emit less warmth to the surface. With constant sunlight in it should hoard more warmth while cooling the atmosphere when compared to warmer water.

La Ninas seem to warm the ocean causing volume expansion. A large IPWP would seem to cause more sea level rise. What about healthy Pacific Gyre rotations? In the NH warm water goes North losing warmth and volume. Cool water goes South gaining warmth and volume. Like simultaneous El Nino and La Nina. Reduced Gyre rotations. Northern water stays the same however, assume sea ice forms because of reduced warm Southern water up there. Ice insulates and retains warmth, increasing volume. Equatorial water being warm emits more warmth to the atmosphere. Its storage of warmth is limited by how warm that seawater is.

While it might be obvious to others, I guess sea ice lose reduces sea level rise by cooling the oceans.

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

“What are the facts in the climate science debate?

  • Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
  • Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
  • Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis.  The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.”

Professor Judith Curry

Curry here is conservative in not going much beyond the 3 bullets. She doesn’t over reach. As when I do my job, I don’t want to found now or later to have been wrong.

Her last line above, she’s saying that it’s our values that matter, the voter’s values, not a small group of scientists saying this will be dangerous. What else is dangerous? River floods. The voters want to do something about that. That seems more of a fact though we don’t know future rainfall.

Are there literal attractors in nature?

Are there literal attractors in nature? Take Apollo 11 as an example. The astronauts went from 1 to 2 upon launch. Then 2 to 3 with an additional burn. From 3, 2 of them went to 4 then back to 3. They went from 3 back to 1 and skipped 2. 1 through 4 can be thought of as different stable regimes and the astronauts move from one to the other. Synchronization can be thought of as a lot of things doing the same thing at the same time. That is a good description of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Its weight include massive amounts of fuel which all does the same thing, it combusts over a short amount of time. Synchronization has been suggested to occur with some regime swaps.

apollo“The theory suggests that the system is pushed past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact…  …– as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.”- Robert Ellison

Earth’s mass provides one attractor with two regimes. Surface and Orbital. Theoretical attractors may also work this way. 2 above might be called higher energy than 1. On Apollo’s trip to the Moon it obtained even higher energy is it transitioned to the next regime. I assume they braked as they got close to the Moon which may be another form of synchonization just as air braking using the Earth’s atmospher may be. The astronauts moved to another attractor called the Moon and later returned. How does all this scale down? Gravity of smaller objects might be too small to see anything like we see with the Solar System. However when we wonder about molecules, that can swap electrons, we might compare it to this diagram.

“The theory suggests that the system is pushed past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact…”

 

Do attractors exist in Nature?

When we look at a temperature plot of past GMATs we may think we see an up and down motion like a Sine wave. This is perhaps most clearly seen over the past 400,000 years as the climate entered and exited Glacial periods. It is suggested that the Climate keeps overshooting its equilibrium. When we ask what that was for the past 400,000 years we’d answer that it’s not either a Glacial or Inter Glacial temperature. So on that time frame we’d argue that the system is bistable. But does it still have an equilibrium? I say yes. And it orbits that just as the Earth orbits the Sun. I am suggesting we can see the Sun Earth system as a useful example of an attractor and the system that orbits it. The mass of the Sun and Earth’s velocity keep Earth on a very predictable path. The Earth is trying to reach the Sun as it is in freefall but that is countered by its velocity and we get a nice predictable arc.

overshoots

 

My graphic is trying to show a hypothetical temperature series going back 100s of thousands of years. Then one is asked to believe that the climate consistently overshoots its equilibrium as evidenced by the Glacial Inter Glacial record. Then trying to find something in Nature more plausible than an up down motion we use an orbit. Important to our Solar System. Important for instance as electrons orbiting their nucleus. Orbiting is in the very large and the very small and it’s hard to conceive of our lives existing without these orbits.