Destabilization of the thermohaline circulation by transient perturbations to the hydrological cycle

We reconsider the problem of the stability of the thermohaline circulation as described by a two-dimensional Boussinesq model with mixed boundary conditions. We determine how the stability properties of the system depend on the intensity of the hydrological cycle. We define a two-dimensional parameters' space descriptive of the hydrology of the system and determine, by considering suitable quasi-static perturbations, a bounded region where multiple equilibria of the system are realized. We then focus on how the response of the system to finite-amplitude surface freshwater forcings depends on their rate of increase. We show that it is possible to define a robust separation between slow and fast regimes of forcing. Such separation is obtained by singling out an estimate of the critical growth rate for the anomalous forcing, which can be related to the characteristic advective time scale of the system.Comment: 37 pages, 8 figures, submitted to Clim. Dy

On the relationship between Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowdown and global surface warming

According to established understanding, deep-water formation in the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean keeps the deep ocean cold, counter-acting the downward mixing of heat from the warmer surface waters in the bulk of the world ocean. Therefore, periods of strong Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) are expected to coincide with cooling of the deep ocean and warming of the surface waters. It has recently been proposed that this relation may have reversed due to global warming, and that during the past decades a strong AMOC coincides with warming of the deep ocean and relative cooling of the surface, by transporting increasingly warmer waters downward. Here we present multiple lines of evidence, including a statistical evaluation of the observed global mean temperature, ocean heat content, and different AMOC proxies, that lead to the opposite conclusion: even during the current ongoing global temperature rise a strong AMOC warms the surface. The observed weakening of the AMOC has therefore delayed global surface warming rather than enhancing i

Reply to Comment on ‘On the relationship between Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowdown and global surface warming’

In their comment on our paper (Caesar et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 024003), Chen and Tung (hereafter C&T) argue that our analysis, showing that over the last decades Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) strength and global mean surface temperature (GMST) were positively correlated, is incorrect. Their claim is mainly based on two arguments, neither of which is justified: first, C&T claim that our analysis is based on 'established evidence' that was only true for preindustrial conditions—this is not the case. Using data from the modern period (1947–2012), we show that the established understanding (i.e. deep-water formation in the North Atlantic cools the deep ocean and warms the surface) is correct, but our analysis is not based on this fact. Secondly, C&T claim that our results are based on a statistical analysis of only one cycle of data which was furthermore incorrectly detrended. This, too, is not true. Our conclusion that a weaker AMOC delays the current surface warming rather than enhances it, is based on several independent lines of evidence. The data we show to support this covers more than one cycle and the detrending (which was performed to avoid spurious correlations due to a common trend) does not affect our conclusion: the correlation between AMOC strength and GMST is positive. We do not claim that this is strong evidence that the two time series are in phase, but rather that this means that the two time series are not anti-correlated

Sensitivity of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to South Atlantic freshwater anomalies

The sensitivity of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) to changes in basin integrated net evaporation is highly dependent on the zonal salinity contrast at the southern border of the Atlantic. Biases in the freshwater budget strongly affect the stability of the AMOC in numerical models. The impact of these biases is investigated, by adding local anomaly patterns in the South Atlantic to the freshwater fluxes at the surface. These anomalies impact the freshwater and salt transport by the different components of the ocean circulation, in particular the basin-scale salt-advection feedback, completely changing the response of the AMOC to arbitrary perturbations. It is found that an appropriate dipole anomaly pattern at the southern border of the Atlantic Ocean can collapse the AMOC entirely even without a further hosing. The results suggest a new view on the stability of the AMOC, controlled by processes in the South Atlantic. <br/

Reply to Comment on "Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide, and climate"

In our analysis [Rahmstorf et al., 2004], we arrived at two main conclusions: the data of Shaviv and Veizer [2003] do not show a significant correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate, and the authors' estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 based on a simple regression analysis is questionable. After careful consideration of Shaviv and Veizer's comment, we want to uphold and reaffirm these conclusions. Concerning the question of correlation, we pointed out that a correlation arose only after several adjustments to the data, including shifting one of the four CRF peaks and stretching the time scale. To calculate statistical significance, we first need to compute the number of independent data points in the CRF and temperature curves being correlated, accounting for their autocorrelation. A standard estimate [Quenouille, 1952] of the number of effective data points is urn:x-wiley:00963941:media:eost14930:eost14930-math-0001 where N is the total number of data points and r1, r2 are the autocorrelations of the two series. For the curves of Shaviv and Veizer [2003], the result is NEFF = 4.8. This is consistent with the fact that these are smooth curves with four humps, and with the fact that for CRF the position of the four peaks is determined by four spiral arm crossings or four meteorite clusters, respectively; that is, by four independent data points. The number of points that enter the calculation of statistical significance of a linear correlation is (NEFF− 2), since any curves based on only two points show perfect correlation; at least three independent points are needed for a meaningful result

Dynamic sea level changes following changes in the thermohaline circulation

Using the coupled climate model CLIMBER-3a, we investigate changes in sea surface elevation due to a weakening of the thermohaline circulation (THC). In addition to a global sea level rise due to a warming of the deep sea, this leads to a regional dynamic sea level change which follows quasi-instantaneously any change in the ocean circulation. We show that the magnitude of this dynamic effect can locally reach up to ~1m, depending on the initial THC strength. In some regions the rate of change can be up to 20-25 mm/yr. The emerging patterns are discussed with respect to the oceanic circulation changes. Most prominent is a south-north gradient reflecting the changes in geostrophic surface currents. Our results suggest that an analysis of observed sea level change patterns could be useful for monitoring the THC strength.Comment: Climate Dynamics (2004), submitted. See also http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~ander

Reply to Comment on ‘On the relationship between Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowdown and global surface warming’

In their comment on our paper (Caesar et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 024003), Chen and Tung (hereafter C&T) argue that our analysis, showing that over the last decades Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) strength and global mean surface temperature (GMST) were positively correlated, is incorrect. Their claim is mainly based on two arguments, neither of which is justified: first, C&T claim that our analysis is based on ‘established evidence’ that was only true for preindustrial conditions—this is not the case. Using data from the modern period (1947–2012), we show that the established understanding (i.e. deep-water formation in the North Atlantic cools the deep ocean and warms the surface) is correct, but our analysis is not based on this fact. Secondly, C&T claim that our results are based on a statistical analysis of only one cycle of data which was furthermore incorrectly detrended. This, too, is not true. Our conclusion that a weaker AMOC delays the current surface warming rather than enhances it, is based on several independent lines of evidence. The data we show to support this covers more than one cycle and the detrending (which was performed to avoid spurious correlations due to a common trend) does not affect our conclusion: the correlation between AMOC strength and GMST is positive. We do not claim that this is strong evidence that the two time series are in phase, but rather that this means that the two time series are not anti-correlated