Gulf of Mexico as heat sink

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Gulf of Mexico as heat sink

Gulf of Mexico as heat sink04-06-2018 00:33
gregpet ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	If you could lower the Gulf of Mexico's water temperature (not saying this is possible just a thought experiment) could you use it as a giant heat sink? The Gulf of Mexico is sometimes referred to as a big bathtub given its relatively shallow depth so it tends to heat up much more than oceans. If so, would a heat sink of this size be able to capture heat that would otherwise be released in to climate? Could a heat sink of this size affect global temperature (by lowering it)?
04-06-2018 02:53
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	gregpet wrote: If you could lower the Gulf of Mexico's water temperature (not saying this is possible just a thought experiment) could you use it as a giant heat sink?..... Sure. The Gulf of Mexico isn't all shallow though and where there is deep water is it is, like other ocean deep water, cold. Look at the chart on page 6 of this paper:https://www.boem.gov/ESPIS/3/3131.pdf The temperature profile is much like other places in the oceans except that the top 200 meters is pretty warm, about 21 C. Where I live on the US west coast the ocean surface temperature runs about 12 C. The oceans are acting like a big heat sink. Always have.
04-06-2018 07:01
gregpet ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Thank you for the reply. So if we just think about just the top 200 meters of the Gulf of Mexico that is ~21 C, how much heat sink potential are we losing based upon the warmer temperature of the gulf? To ask another way, if the Gulf of Mexico averaged ~12 C cooler within the top 200 meters would this make a noticeable change in global warming (by creating additional heat sink in the top 200 meters)? Again, this is just a thought experiment and thank you in advance for any replies. This is a way to help me understand/conceptualize the scale of change that would be necessary to affect in global temp.
04-06-2018 20:37
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	gregpet wrote: .....To ask another way, if the Gulf of Mexico averaged ~12 C cooler within the top 200 meters would this make a noticeable change in global warming (by creating additional heat sink in the top 200 meters)?.... I doubt if the change would be noticeable because the Gulf of Mexico's surface area is only 0.4% of the total ocean surface area. (362 x 10^6 sq km vs 1.55 x 10^6 sq km, figures from wikipedia) I did another sort of calculation based on your question, did it two ways, tried to come up with a yearly increase in the Gulf of Mexico water temperature if all the global warming energy were somehow funneled into it instead of the world as a whole, sort of consider the Gulf of Mexico as a heatsink for the entire world. Came up with 2.8 and 2.9 degrees C per year. Easier way, found in IPCC5 the estimate that the top 75 meters of the world's oceans warmed by 0.11 degrees C per decade between 1971 and 2010 (big error bar), and that it's estimated that 90% of the energy goes into the oceans, hen did the multiplication/division while ignoring depth differences and came up with 2.9 degrees C per year if allt the warming were concentrated into the Gulf of Mexico. Other way, the anthropogenic radiative forcing is estimated to average 2.3 watts per square meter (big error bar)(IPCC5 again), then, using Earth's area, figure that the total wattage or joules per second is 1.2 x 10^15. Converting that to calories (a calorie will warm a cubic centimeter of water by one degree C), get 2.7 x 10^14 calories per second. Then figuring in the total volume of the top 200 meters of the Gulf of Mexico and the number of seconds in a year, came up with 2.8 degrees C per year. At 2.8 degrees per year and starting at 9, then 34 years to boiling.
04-06-2018 20:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	Just how do you propose to lower the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico? It's all rather an inane conversation going here.

04-06-2018 21:27
gregpet ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Still learning: Thank you for indulging me and I find your comments really interesting. Is it fair to say that if you could keep the Gulf (on average) ~12 C cooler you would more then be able to mitigate the additional heating in the atmosphere? The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2). I know this is obvious to many but it was interesting for me to explore this using the Gulf as a unit of measurement (I live in Houston so the Gulf of Mexico is familiar to me). Into the Night: I'm more trying to think about climate change/warming in another way. We all have different ways of conceptualizing problems and solutions. I do have my own crazy idea about cooling the Gulf but at the risk of getting trolled I may just keep it to myself
04-06-2018 22:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	gregpet wrote: Into the Night: I'm more trying to think about climate change/warming in another way. We all have different ways of conceptualizing problems and solutions. What is this other way? So far all I have seen from you is simply the assumption of global warming and climate change. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-06-2018 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	gregpet wrote: The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2). CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not possible to 'soak up' heat any more than it is possible to 'soak up' current in a river. Additional thermal energy in the atmosphere (or the Earth) requires an energy source in addition to what our Sun is already putting out and being absorbed by the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-06-2018 23:40
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	gregpet wrote: .....The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2)..... The oceans are now the repository of most of the accumulated anthropogenic climate change energy. More than 90% according to the IPCC5 report. Quoting: "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory between 1971 and 2010." See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf I guess you could magically move those 3.6 x 10^22 joules of energy per year into the relatively tiny (0.3% of the Earth's surface) Gulf of Mexico, but what would you then do with all that energy? Energy is conserved.
05-06-2018 03:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	still learning wrote: gregpet wrote: .....The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2)..... The oceans are now the repository of most of the accumulated anthropogenic climate change energy. More than 90% according to the IPCC5 report. The IPCC denies science. There is no 'climate change energy'. still learning wrote: Quoting: "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory between 1971 and 2010." See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. still learning wrote: I guess you could magically move those 3.6 x 10^22 joules of energy per year into the relatively tiny (0.3% of the Earth's surface) Gulf of Mexico, but what would you then do with all that energy? Energy is conserved. You can't decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics). You have to expend energy from somewhere else to do it. Where are you going to get that energy? How would that cool the Earth? The Gulf of Mexico is part of the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2018 05:29
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: gregpet wrote: .....The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2)..... The oceans are now the repository of most of the accumulated anthropogenic climate change energy. More than 90% according to the IPCC5 report. The IPCC relies on science. There is 'climate change energy'. still learning wrote: Quoting: "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory between 1971 and 2010." See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf It is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. still learning wrote: I guess you could magically move those 3.6 x 10^22 joules of energy per year into the relatively tiny (0.3% of the Earth's surface) Gulf of Mexico, but what would you then do with all that energy? Energy is conserved. You can decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics). You have to absorb energy from somewhere else to do it. Where are you going to get that energy? How would that cool the Earth? The Gulf of Mexico is part of the Earth.
05-06-2018 10:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: still learning wrote: gregpet wrote: .....The key is obviously having a body of water large enough and cool enough to soak up the additional heat in the atmosphere (caused by CO2)..... The oceans are now the repository of most of the accumulated anthropogenic climate change energy. More than 90% according to the IPCC5 report. The IPCC relies on science. There is 'climate change energy'. still learning wrote: Quoting: "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth's energy inventory between 1971 and 2010." See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf It is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. still learning wrote: I guess you could magically move those 3.6 x 10^22 joules of energy per year into the relatively tiny (0.3% of the Earth's surface) Gulf of Mexico, but what would you then do with all that energy? Energy is conserved. You can decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics). You have to absorb energy from somewhere else to do it. Where are you going to get that energy? How would that cool the Earth? The Gulf of Mexico is part of the Earth. Changing what I said does not erase what I said, dumbass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2018 14:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	...This one people can consider since 93% of warming (just throwing out random numbers here like 25 or 6 to 4, random) and it's coming from the seas. Glaciers constantly melt, at their bases. Why finding ice cores that go back over 1 million years is a challenge. ..What would prevent the Earth from releasing heat because it's rotation is slowing ? Even for the Earth, it's rotational velocity has the same effect as wind chill. When things are accelerating they absorb energy and when slowing release it. So wind chill violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. ..Of course a slowing Gulf Stream could have the same effect because this might mean that the thermohaline circulation is slowing. Could be one reason why different random events should be ignored, science can be falsified but not logic. A penny saved is a penny earned. That's logic and not a penny spent is a penny enjoyed. So we do know that logic is always right. ..Water is about 1,000 times denser than air so it might be that water's velocity if changed by 1/1,000th of air could have the same cooling or warming effect. 5 mph = 2.2352 meter per second. with water a change of 0.0022352 mps might have the same effect as air changing it's velocity by 2.2352 mps. ..Just more meaningless random numbers https://www.eol.ucar.edu/homes/rilling/wc_table.html Edited on 05-06-2018 15:19
05-06-2018 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: ...This one people can consider since 93% of warming (just throwing out random numbers here like 25 or 6 to 4, random) and it's coming from the seas. Glaciers constantly melt, at their bases. Why finding ice cores that go back over 1 million years is a challenge. ..What would prevent the Earth from releasing heat because it's rotation is slowing ? Even for the Earth, it's rotational velocity has the same effect as wind chill. Earth's rotation does not chill the Earth. James___ wrote: When things are accelerating they absorb energy and when slowing release it. Earth is not accelerating. James___ wrote: So wind chill violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No, it doesn't. Wind chill is the increased effect of evaporation on cooling the human body caused by wind. The evaporation still occurs, but the wind helps to increase heating just like a fan does. James___ wrote: ..Of course a slowing Gulf Stream could have the same effect because this might mean that the thermohaline circulation is slowing. Wouldn't matter even if was slowing (it isn't). James___ wrote: Could be one reason why different random events should be ignored, science can be falsified but not logic. Science cannot be falsified. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Only individual theories of science are falsifiable, not science itself. Logic cannot be falsified. It is a closed system, just like mathematics. James___ wrote: A penny saved is a penny earned. That's logic That is not logic. That is an old saying that redefines 'earned'. It is a redefinition fallacy. James___ wrote: and not a penny spent is a penny enjoyed. A penny is worthless until you spend it! James___ wrote: So we do know that logic is always right. A fallacy concerning pennies is not proof logic is always right. LOL Logic is always right because it is a closed system. It is literally defined to be 'right'. James___ wrote: ..Water is about 1,000 times denser than air so it might be that water's velocity if changed by 1/1,000th of air could have the same cooling or warming effect. Changing velocity of water does not heat or cool the Earth. James___ wrote: 5 mph = 2.2352 meter per second. with water a change of 0.0022352 mps might have the same effect as air changing it's velocity by 2.2352 mps. ..Just more meaningless random numbers Yup. Just more meaningless random numbers. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2018 20:23
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	..@mockton, ..If you look at this map (2nd link) of the Gulf Stream. 2 currents go north of England and one stays south of England. If the Gulf Stream is slowing then the current that goes towards France would dump more heat into the atmosphere. The thermohaline circulation requires that current to go to the sea floor or has required it. I'm not a scientist but would think that when a current slows that it's heat content has to go somewhere. And this of course would also help England to be warmer as well. The 1st link is to images from 1971 to 2000 and 1981 to 2010 in Great Britain showing that warming there has been observed. It wouldn't be remarkable to consider that both England and France are warming from the same source, the heat that's not going to the Arctic because the Arctic is warming from it's sea floor. https://photos.app.goo.gl/rbCPGk1Ac3qPP6RO2 https://odinumbraco.blob.core.windows.net/web-mountainguides/824733/gulfstream.jpg edited to add; to stay "on topic" it is possible that the Gulf of Mexico is warming because less heat is being transported out of it by the Gulf Stream. This would only show the size of the are that is impacted by a slowing Gulf Stream. Edited on 05-06-2018 20:25

05-06-2018 21:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	*This would only show the size of the area that is impacted by a slowing Gulf Stream. forgot the "a" on area.
05-06-2018 23:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: ..@mockton, ..If you look at this map (2nd link) of the Gulf Stream. 2 currents go north of England and one stays south of England. If the Gulf Stream is slowing then the current that goes towards France would dump more heat into the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. It has nothing to do with the North Atlantic drift or the Canary current. James___ wrote: The thermohaline circulation requires that current to go to the sea floor or has required it. I'm not a scientist but would think that when a current slows that it's heat content has to go somewhere. Heat is not energy. A current doesn't 'contain' heat. James___ wrote: edited to add; to stay "on topic" it is possible that the Gulf of Mexico is warming because less heat is being transported out of it by the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream does not cool the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot transport heat. James___ wrote: This would only show the size of the are that is impacted by a slowing Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2018 01:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: ..@mockton, ..If you look at this map (2nd link) of the Gulf Stream. 2 currents go north of England and one stays south of England. If the Gulf Stream is slowing then the current that goes towards France would dump more heat into the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. It has nothing to do with the North Atlantic drift or the Canary current. James___ wrote: The thermohaline circulation requires that current to go to the sea floor or has required it. I'm not a scientist but would think that when a current slows that it's heat content has to go somewhere. Heat is not energy. A current doesn't 'contain' heat. James___ wrote: edited to add; to stay "on topic" it is possible that the Gulf of Mexico is warming because less heat is being transported out of it by the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream does not cool the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot transport heat. James___ wrote: This would only show the size of the are that is impacted by a slowing Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. I can't disagree with anything you have said.
06-06-2018 15:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Litesong got banned for posting links to information about climate change. And all ITN states is that he doesn't accept the principles of thermodynamics or Boltzmann's constant. Yet it is considered that he is debating something. ..At itn, this is why I won't discuss desalination with you. If it can be improved to support agriculture there would be no need to irrigate or supply water to any Native American reservations. ..You have shown me it would be a waste of time. As one person posted, over 24 horses dying as a result of no water at a watering hole near a reservation is not a problem. After all, water can't be transported.
06-06-2018 19:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: Litesong got banned for posting links to information about climate change. No, he got banned for posting spam. James___ wrote: And all ITN states is that he doesn't accept the principles of thermodynamics or Boltzmann's constant. I do, actually. Why do you believe I don't?? James___ wrote: Yet it is considered that he is debating something. There is nothing to debate about existing theories of science unless you can falsify them. James___ wrote: .At itn, this is why I won't discuss desalination with you. Paranoia. There's nothing wrong with desalination. James___ wrote: If it can be improved to support agriculture there would be no need to irrigate or supply water to any Native American reservations. That's talking about a lot of water. Where are you going to get it from? James___ wrote: ..You have shown me it would be a waste of time. Considering that you are failing to account for the cost of doing it, you are probably right. James___ wrote: As one person posted, over 24 horses dying as a result of no water at a watering hole near a reservation is not a problem. It may or may not be a problem. Were the horses wild? Were they owned by someone? Did they have insufficient water to keep 24 horses and couldn't find any buyers for them? James___ wrote: After all, water can't be transported. It can. It's called 'rivers'. But you don't have to desalinate those. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2018 20:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	..I think you're funny itn. This is because all you want to do is to cause other people problems. I tend to think that horses dying of thirst would suggest no water is available. But you have to be a problem, right ?
06-06-2018 22:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: ..I think you're funny itn. This is because all you want to do is to cause other people problems. I tend to think that horses dying of thirst would suggest no water is available. But you have to be a problem, right ? No water is available in a lot of places. So? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Gulf of Mexico as heat sink:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Some can take the heat, and	2	14-10-2023 13:26
Climate-Change at the US-Mexico border?	1	12-05-2023 07:19
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
Gargantuan sluice gate in Gulf Stream to warm Europe, lower nat gas need	29	26-04-2022 18:14
caest iron heat stoerage	8	04-08-2021 06:52