Why is that oceans only take up more heat from the air since the fossil fuel attack?
That's how I hear it talked about everywhere.
Was it the case that #ocean did not store more and more heat while GMT anomaly was 0.0°C? Were oceans in equilibrium then? Can't be, can it?

And also: the #Holocene would have been an exceptionally long interglacial with the next peak glacialisation 100,000 years from now https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1275/2021/ – if it weren't for the #fossilfuel attack, ofc. The fossil attack pushes the next full glacialisation to 700,000yrs from now...

What would the oceans have done with all the additional years of warm air in a fossil-free, long, not cooling Holocene?

Am just confounded right now.
I'd say, oceans always take up heat, even in an ice age.. I either misunderstood #clicomm or the #scicomm wasn't clear enough on this.

If the warming from down to 2km depth stored by the oceans since 1955 were released in one go, the air up to 10km high would heat by 36°C in an instant. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051106
Once we stop the fossil attack, global warming ± ~halts. But the oceans continue storing heat – and will for the next 650.000+ years, until and beyond when our fossil hell freezes over, so to say... They must, right? So... What ocean life forms remain in, let's say, 50,000yrs time? Heat-loving bacteria, eh.

Reduced-complexity model for the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on future glacial cycles

Abstract. We propose a reduced-complexity process-based model for the long-term evolution of the global ice volume, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and global mean temperature. The model's only external forcings are the orbital forcing and anthropogenic CO2 cumulative emissions. The model consists of a system of three coupled non-linear differential equations representing physical mechanisms relevant for the evolution of the climate–ice sheet–carbon cycle system on timescales longer than thousands of years. Model parameters are calibrated using paleoclimate reconstructions and the results of two Earth system models of intermediate complexity. For a range of parameters values, the model is successful in reproducing the glacial–interglacial cycles of the last 800 kyr, with the best correlation between modelled and global paleo-ice volume of 0.86. Using different model realisations, we produce an assessment of possible trajectories for the next 1 million years under natural and several fossil-fuel CO2 release scenarios. In the natural scenario, the model assigns high probability of occurrence of long interglacials in the periods between the present and 120 kyr after present and between 400 and 500 kyr after present. The next glacial inception is most likely to occur ∼50 kyr after present with full glacial conditions developing ∼90 kyr after present. The model shows that even already achieved cumulative CO2 anthropogenic emissions (500 Pg C) are capable of affecting the climate evolution for up to half a million years, indicating that the beginning of the next glaciation is highly unlikely in the next 120 kyr. High cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions (3000 Pg C or higher), which could potentially be achieved in the next 2 to 3 centuries if humanity does not curb the usage of fossil fuels, will most likely provoke Northern Hemisphere landmass ice-free conditions throughout the next half a million years, postponing the natural occurrence of the next glacial inception to 600 kyr after present or later.

You know what's missing in #scicomm ? A repeated reminder why losing #Arctic #seaice is so bad.
Am just reading again something about #WillSteffen where he mentions it and had to stop and think hard: why is that bad, again?

Not only do #PolarBear cubs lose their playgrounds for growing up on when summer seaice dwindles and eventually, is gone.
We lose the known weather patterns, too. Bad for agriculture. *

Bad for human and animal health, including insects, when heatwave length and heatwave occurrence increase. Pollinators lose fertility in heatwaves; offspring conceived in heatwaves has yet lower fertility, and so on.
Stationary heat in In Alaska's and Canada's warmed-up rivers is bad news for salmon – and that is bad news for other animals which used to feed on them.

With less sea ice, #permafrost thaw also speeds up. ...

When the #jetstream slows down in summer in lower temperature difference from pole to equator due to lack of seaice,
stationary heat evaporates water from boreal forest and causes bigger fires. So we lose a carbon sink. And in Siberian cities but also in Moscow, the air in summer becomes unbreathable from the smoke.

In the permafrost regions, the ignited peat from a fire started in summer heatwaves can smoulder on through winter under the snow, and burn again in earnest next spring, hot or not. #GhostFire

* A PNAS paper last year explained that the Azores high expands then, and pushes the Iceland low AND its rains, further North. Regions fall dry which used to get their summer rain from the Iceland low (or even winter snow – when the Azore high expands in winter but due to #AMOC slowdown).
Northern Italy, France, the Alpes, Benelux, Germany... dry when we lose sea ice.

And northern Europe receives more rain. Maybe too much - causing flooding, esp. in cities and around deforested areas.

Not sure now about North Africa and Spain and Portugal. The Mediterranean IS influenced by the (then expanding) Azores high. But I don't know how and I don't know details of the Mediterranean's own "weather regions" and how they interact with Azores high expansion.

Arctic sea ice, and lack thereof, also impacts China's monsoon. But I forgot how.

Lastly, what I'm also not quite sure about, right now, is an interaction between lack of sea ice in the Barents Sea, La Nina, and the occurrence of #SuddenStratosphericWarming #SSW in winter. IIRC, a paper suggested statistical connection of the three but lacked an explanation for the potential cause.
After a SSW in winter, the polar vortex collapses and cold air leaps south. Then Texas' power grid falters and Europe has to turn up heating. If SSW occurs in spring, like last March 31st, and the year before, it kills the potentially already budding plants, like cherry trees.
If loss of sea ice does result in more frequent SSW, loss of crop increases.
Now, because that paper made the statistical connection between #LaNina, #BarentsSea ice, and SSW,
I add another paper (Matt England et al) to the mix: if AMOC slows down, they suggested last year, it causes a permanent La Nina state.

A permanent La Nina state, beyond its well-own implications in terms of drought or flooding in various world regions,
together with dwindling sea ice, would then increase the frequency of SSW events.
More cold snaps.
And more crop loss if the SSWs occur in spring.

Ha. I do remember quite a lot of stuff wrt Arctic sea ice. It's just hard to keep it all in short-term memory, tho, for when I'm reading or watching #clicomm scicomm.

I should condense what I know into succinct but complete bullet points I can memorize 😁