69 replies to this topic

[Gray-Wolf]

NorthNorfolkWeather, on 14 September 2010 - 16:31 , said:

Are you sure you are not confusing Methane Hydrate (Methane clathrate) with CO2?

Not at all and our Siberian experience shows us how well it travels without dissolving (esp. in warmer oceans) and past 'rapid warmings' have us wondering just how unstable clathrates can be.

If you look at the Delta areas (Nile and Amazon) you'll then see how much 'fresh' clathrate is out there waiting for that 0.5c temp hike without troubling the submerged permafrost off Siberia or deep deposits off Svalbard.

In the same way that Antarctica was off the menu 15yrs ago only for our observations to prove us wrong the old 'No clathrate meltdown' reassurance of 10yrs ago is now under question esp. since the Siberian leak was noted.

[BornFromTheVoid]

A study reported Science Daily here
Among other things, the new research suggests North Atlantic SSTs and climate are more heavily influenced by volcanic eruptions and solar activities than by changes in ocean circulation...

Edited by NaDamantaSam, 14 September 2010 - 18:46 .

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Gray-Wolf, on 26 August 2010 - 08:43 , said:

Had I meant 'year' Y.S. I'm sure I would have said so........

Back to warming of the abyssal plain. Anyone want to guess at was 'frozen' substance resides down there? (clue: it puts the fizz in yer Pop)

Any "pop" I've drunk has been carbonated, i.e. the fizz is Carbon Dioxide, hence the original question.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, methane hydrate is a much more powerful GHG, but it will take temps in the Abyssal plain >5.5 due to the pressures involved. Now, as water is densest at 4c, it means that the whole ocean has to warm to >5.5 for that to happen.


or are you going to give us a special on that as well?

[jethro]

Sorry if this is a really idiot question but I've been wondering about the Tsunami in Japan. As the earthquake was so large and on the ocean floor and the Tsunami it generated crossed the entire Pacific to the Western shores of the USA, what if any impacts will this have on the the temperature profile of the Pacific? Does it have the potential to change the profile of the La Nina by distributing or interrupting the distinctive temperature profile pattern?

[Iceberg]

I don't have any links or anything, but my understanding about this is that, it won't have any effect as its not water moving, but rather kinetic energy passing from one water molecule to the next i.e water molecule 1 bumps into number 2 and so on. Once the energy has moved on everything pretty much behaves as it did before. Due to this there will be no effect on the pacific water profile and no effect on ENSO.

[Gray-Wolf]

My understanding too Ice, if you think that the 'disruption' in waters over 600m deep is hardly noticeable then you can imagine how little impact it makes? As for dislodging clathrate deposits? well thats another question!!! We'd not want a large seismic event near any of the major deposits methinks!!!

[williams]

Hello I'm new,<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1878"><BR closure_uid_amu12k="1879">Currently I'm looking for monthly data (as TXT, or XLS, or DAT ...) SST anomalies or of the SST :<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1880">- Mediterranean ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1881">- Barents Sea ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1882">- the Sargasso Sea ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1883">- Labrador Sea ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1884">- the North Sea ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1885">- Channel ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1886">- and especially in different areas of the North Atlantic Ocean as the western North Atlantic, northern North Atlantic (between southern Greenland and southern Iceland), Western the Portuguese coast ;<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1887"><BR closure_uid_amu12k="1888">Do you know where to find such data in recent years ?<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1889"><BR closure_uid_amu12k="1890">Thank you<BR closure_uid_amu12k="1891"><BR closure_uid_amu12k="1892">Williams

[Weather Ship]

Gray-Wolf, on 16 March 2011 - 15:00 , said:

My understanding too Ice, if you think that the 'disruption' in waters over 600m deep is hardly noticeable then you can imagine how little impact it makes? As for dislodging clathrate deposits? well thats another question!!! We'd not want a large seismic event near any of the major deposits methinks!!!

Not only that, the disruption on the surface is hardly noticeable. If you were in a boat you probably wouldn't even notice it passing. The diagram in my post here illustrates what I mean.
http://forum.netweat...s/page__st__493

Edited by weather ship, 06 June 2011 - 16:52 .

[williams]

Hello I'm new,

Currently I'm looking for monthly data (as TXT, or XLS, or DAT ...) SST anomalies or of the SST :
- Mediterranean ;
- Barents Sea ;
- the Sargasso Sea ;
- Labrador Sea ;
- the North Sea ;
- Channel ;
- and especially in different areas of the North Atlantic Ocean as the western North Atlantic, northern North Atlantic (between southern Greenland and southern Iceland), Western the Portuguese coast ;

Do you know where to find such data in recent years

Williams

[Weather Ship]

Iceberg, on 14 March 2011 - 12:46 , said:

I don't have any links or anything, but my understanding about this is that, it won't have any effect as its not water moving, but rather kinetic energy passing from one water molecule to the next i.e water molecule 1 bumps into number 2 and so on. Once the energy has moved on everything pretty much behaves as it did before. Due to this there will be no effect on the pacific water profile and no effect on ENSO.

I would basically agree with that but just to add potential energy also plays a role. It is a free wave in the sense that it was forced to begin with (by the earthquake). By contrast, tidal waves are generated by the gravitational force of the Sun and Moon, which do not shut off and so are "forced" waves. The Sun and Moon continue to constrain the tide all the way across the ocean. The essential point as you mentioned is that there is no mass horizontal movement of water.