From the University of Southampton
New study explains the role of oceans in global ‘warming hiatus’
New research shows that ocean heat uptake across three oceans is the likely cause of the ‘warming hiatus’ – the current decade-long slowdown in global surface warming.
Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models, the research shows that the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean basins has played a significant role in the hiatus.
The new analysis has been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Professor Sybren Drijfhout from the University of Southampton and collaborators from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) Dr Adam Blaker, Professor Simon Josey, Dr George Nurser and Dr Bablu Sinha, together with Dr Magdalena Balmaseda from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF).
Professor Drijfhout said: “This study attributes the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean to specific, different mechanisms in each region. This is important as current climate models have been unable to simulate the hiatus. Our study gives clues to where the heat is drawn down and by which processes. This can serve as a benchmark for climate models on how to improve their projections of future global mean temperature.”
Previously, the drawdown of heat by the Equatorial Pacific Ocean over the hiatus period, due to cool sea-surface temperatures associated with a succession of cool-surface La Nina episodes, was thought to be sufficient to explain the hiatus.
However, this new analysis reveals that the northern North Atlantic, the Southern Ocean and Equatorial Pacific Ocean are all important regions of ocean heat uptake. Each basin contributes a roughly equal amount to explaining the hiatus, but the mechanisms of heat drawdown are different and specific in each basin.
In the North Atlantic, more heat has been retained at deep levels as a result of changes to both the ocean and atmospheric circulations, which have led to the winter atmosphere extracting less heat from the ocean.
In the Southern Ocean, the extra drawdown of heat had gone unnoticed and is increasing on a much longer timescale (multi-decadal) than the other two regions (decadal). Here, gradual changes in the prevailing westerly winds have modified the ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, particularly in the Southern Indian Ocean.
The team calculated the change in the amount of heat entering the ocean using a state-of-the-art high resolution ocean model developed and run by NOC scientists that is driven by surface observations. This estimate was compared with results from an ocean model-data synthesis from ECMWF and a leading atmospheric model-data synthesis produced in the US. Professor Josey said: “It is the synthesis of information from models and observational data that provides a major strength of our study.”
Dr Sinha concluded: “The deeper understanding gained in this study of the processes and regions responsible for variations in oceanic heat drawdown and retention will improve the accuracy of future climate projections.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
current climate models have been unable to simulate the hiatus
The devil you say…!
No. No. No.
That can’t possibly be correct.
Can’t be.
The science is settled. The science is settled.
Why don’t these revisionists just go away.
According to this chart the ocean temps off the east cost of the U.S. are 150º. I don’t think so.
Without actually reading the paper, I suspect the chart is representing OHC anomalies in some form of +/- 10^22 Joules from a baseline.
Bob T went through how miniscule any such additional heat is on actual ocean temperatures in this post –>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/30/the-tempering-effect-of-the-oceans-on-global-warming/
The actual temperature variations from those OHC anomalies represent a few hundredths of a degree C.
It is low-level noise in a chaotic system.
My thought is that, the lack of thermosteric sea level rise acceleration (actually, it’s decelerating since 2005) is a strong refutation of any model predictions of missing heat hiding in the oceans.
You’re probably right. One of my pet peeves are graphs without axis labels.
Wait a damn second . . .
“Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models”
Output from models is NOT data.
You beat me to it.
And me
“Output from models is NOT data.”
You’re not a climate scientist then…
Output from global climate models IS data; just not very accurate data when compared to measurements. I assume the point of this study is to input data from GCMs and improve accuracy using new methods to estimate heat absorption of the oceans. I wonder if they checked it against instrument measurements going back to 1880? There were 2 other “hiatuses” in that period: 1880-1910 and 1940-1970.
No, models are theories burned into computer code. They have no validity until they have been “ground truthed”. Who went out there with a thermometer and measured the actual temperature to compare it with the model? Nobody.
We have seen this again and again. A new theory (model) comes on line every year claiming another climatastrophy, usually just in time for the next climate conference at which we are all told we have to destroy the global economy and condem billions to poverty without even electric lighting.
If by data, you mean “raw” data taken directly from measurements you are wrong. You are referring to numeric output, which is derived mathematically. Data is measured, output is derived.
“Output from global climate models IS data;” NOPE! Not a chance. Huge distinction between model out put and actual readings.There is plenty to argue about in the interpretation of actual raw data. Climate model predictions form the basis for a falsifiable analysis of the theory when subsequently compared to the reality. SCIENTIFIC THEORY! vs POLITICAL THEORY
I’m afraid it is data. Data is just another word for ‘figures’.
Corrected values aren’t “data” in respect of Theories of Science…. Bad input -> Bad output…. still no data.
Can one really get data from models? I suppose you can get results, but are those data? IMO, data are observations of nature.
No, but you can get those results fast and furious, at the press of button. While the experimentalists are putting their boots on you can already have three submissions on the editors desk.
The early bird gets the grant.
The Team has corrupted even the language of science, along with its practice.
How about no more supercomputer time for “climate science” practitioners until they clean up their act? Let them go out and collect data instead of manufacturing models which show what they program them to show.
LOL …… but true.
Catherine, I have to agree 100%. I think we should lock out everything on their computers except email. Each “scientist” would be issued several boxes of #2 pencils (with erasers,) lined and gridded paper, log and trig table books and each gets a nice, operable antique K&E slide rule. When they learn to analyze real data then we give them access to Excel with all the statistical functions disabled forcing them to use real math to analyze their data. This way we immerse them back in the real world instead of the VR Model Matrix they’re currently living in.
Think of it as methadone for climate modellers.
That’s what I had in mind. Maybe allow a 1973 HP calculator.
They also need a straight edge to smoothly draw the error bars above and below the data points… because without error bars… where is the science?
Let’s be careful not to undermine or criticize science itself just because some people are doing it badly. Every scientific equation is a “model”. If one wants to analyze empirical data with the goal of understanding and predicting future behavior, one is going to have to “model” the phenomena.
Any sufficiently complex system will not allow for a simple analytical solution. That’s where things like Runge-Kutta and finite element analysis comes in.
This article uses the word “analysis” and “study”. It says “Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models”, which does not imply empirical data.
The article makes good sense.
You mean it’s internally consistent, which means nothing in the real world.
I do not agree.
A formula can simply be a precise description of a system. Take F=MA. It is provably a description of what is actually happening under non-relativistic conditions. To somehow conflate that with a recursive, re-entrant, 10,000+ lines of complex code, computer fantasy is at best misleading. The second one only describes the fantasies of the person who wrote it and has no basis in reality as it has not been shown to describe it correctly.
(BTW, I’ve done computer programming for a living and managed a supercomputer center doing plastic flow modeling. I’m not adverse to using well proven models in a limited context. Yet even with one fluid of precise physical properties in a very limited complexity mold within a narrow temperature range: we had about 1 in 10 die sets that needed to be reworked as the model was off… )
So no, not all formulas are models. Some are precise descriptions in a specifically tested context.
E.M, every scientific equation is by definition, a model of reality. For example, we used to think we knew, but as time goes on, we’ve realized that we really don’t understand what Matter is. Like you pointed out, it’s a fairly accurate model, but only under non-relativistic conditions.
Your description “recursive, re-entrant, 10,000+ lines of complex code, computer fantasy is at best misleading” has quite a lot of emotional baggage.
To those of you who aren’t software engineers, the words “recursive, re-entrant” are basically swear words. I don’t believe for one instant that you have first hand knowledge of that.
I agree that the AGW models are probably based on bad science, bad analysis and bad modelling. However, that’s just my guess, since I don’t have first hand knowledge.
This model looks like it was created by elegant, non reentrant code: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3827
By definition, equations are models of reality. They certainly aren’t reality itself. A model is a “description” of reality. Preciseness varies and is a very relative term.
The bottom line is that if one was tasked to analyze the earth thermodynamic system, one would end up with a large finite element analysis model. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method)
There is no other way. By slamming models in general, you are undermining all science.
VE — Semantic quibbles and arcane jargon obscure the primary thrust of the criticism, which is simply that using model output as input/validation for another model is bad practice (engineers can face dire consequences up to and including criminal sanctions for these kinds of shenanigans).
Nowhere is this more evident than the GCMs, which have a huge GIGO problem because they use the GISS “model” of what temperatures “should” be according to all the assumptions the GISS modelers have introduced.
talldave2, it’s not a semantic quibble, since the thrust of your criticism is partially invalid on its face. A partially valid complaint would be if someone used a model not based on first principles to validate a hypothesis instead of empirical data. That would be invalid logic and would therefore contradict the scientific method. To make this claim, you’d have to have first hand knowledge of the model specifics.
The word “validation” in your quote could be just fine. For example, many proofs of scientific relationships (models) consist of deriving that relationship from other well established scientific equations (Models). As such, one model was validated by comparing it to other models.
However, if we remove the word “validation”, the rest falls apart as nonsense. When I designed aircraft generators for a living, we always used the output from one model as input into another. For example, a model of oil flowing through a generator would compute how heat is being removed from the windings. This would be input into another complex model of the electromagnetics of the generator.
And NO, engineers CANNOT be brought up on criminal sanctions for simply feeding the output of one model into another. Reality is extremely complex, and there is no other way to analyze complex systems.
If you feel like the proponents of AGW are in error, then you’ll have to criticize the specific content of the models themselves. You just can’t make blanket condemnations of all models, like some ignorant person who has never studied or practiced science.
“…but the mechanisms of heat drawdown…”
==============
What is “heat drawdown”? We know well how heat transfers, but heat drawdown.
“Heat Drawdown” is a fairly new phenomenon. It is also known as The Trenberth Factor
A formula can simply be a precise description of a system. Take F=MA. It is provably a description of what is actually happening under non-relativistic conditions. To somehow conflate that with a recursive, re-entrant, 10,000+ lines of complex code, computer fantasy is at best misleading. E.E.Smith
While I agree the the current climate models seem quite awful, let me point to a counterexample to your hypothesis.
Early USAF satellite ground station software used simple elliptical orbit prediction computations. Unfortunately as timed passed, the demands for accurate orbit prediction increased and the fact that the Earth isn’t a simple entity and its space environment is complex became increasingly difficult. Eventually the ground station people replaced the closed form equations with an iterative incremental step model that did indeed run to many thousands of lines of complex code modeling the various forces acting on the satellites. It (usually) produced much more accurate results than the simple model.
However, and this is important, the code was expected to be able to predict satellite positions and was validated by its ability to do so.
I’d take the position that climate models have VERY limited utility unless and until they are able to make accurate predictions. I can’t think why any sensible person would believe otherwise … which leads me to believe that the world is full of folks with quite dubious judgment.
This is a roundabout way of saying multi-decadal ocean cycles. Hey, those might be important, especially in explaining ongoing model errors and global policy fail.
Does this study prove that it is all natural and that CO2, man made or any other type, cannot possibly warm the globe unchecked?
So they are saying the ocean high hi ate the warming. Is it the elevated sea levels or the increased acidity that makes the oceans eat the hi ate us.
What has changed (in the ocean) from all the past history of steadily warming ??
Seems like a WAG tome.
I wish it were an equal-area map projection.
This is not another excuse, they have tried this one several times already.
Shhhh…they’re trying to build a consensus.
It is the entire basis of the AGW movement. There is a very good description of it, starting with Hansen, in a fascinating book that was published by Nature in 2012 – “The Social Life of Climate Change Models; Anticipating Nature”, by Hastrup and Skrydstrup. I have only read a few pages, but might be tempted to buy the e-book to read the rest. It talks about how Hansen and his colleagues were driven by the “politically relevant scientific activity” of climate modeling to push the results into the limelight, and how they turned the results of their computer models into “facts” and “data” that became accepted by the scientific community and the public. If you publish enough charts and graphs, evidently some people start to think that you know what you are talking about.
This is what they do. It is junk science of the very worst sort, and has corrupted so many other fields of study..
So one fine day the oceans got together and said: Let’s soak up some heat while we can. Who knows if we will ever get another opportunity like this to confuse the sciencers.
Have I got this right? The oceans have absorbed the AGW of the 20th c. and it’s never happened before. Or this has been shown to be historical? Like, it’s happened many times before when the globe has heated? No? Oh well….
RoyAJensen
It seems to be that the ocean has been at it a long time as it takes heat (energy) of one kind or another to produce the limestone deposits that are produce there out of calcium and carbon. To say it has now been just discovered seems to be to be admitting you are a slow learner.
An interesting way heat can hide in the deep oceans is by the ocean being covered in ice pack.
Arctic ice has been growing, as well as (for a longer period) Antarctic pack ice.
Ithoughtheatriseshowcanitbedrawndown
Heat always flows from warmer to colder. Besides, ocean currents go down. For example, when the gulf stream get to the north of Norway, it goes down to the ocean floor.
Always good to remember that less dense gas or liquid will rise and more dense will sink rather than hot air/water rises.
Bodies of water will develop thermal stratification, blocking flow from warmer to colder. See “thermocline.”
Thermoclines don’t block heat flow. Both dynamics occur simultaneously. The result is that thermo lines change depth. For example, the sun heats water at the equator to 80 F to a depth of 50 meters. This water is lighter than the non equatorial water of the same depth, which is cooler.
This water displaces the cooler water, in effect switching places, resulting in currents. The warm water spreads out, but also heats cooler water, since nothing can stop heat flow. Water is a very good heat conductor.
Also, equatorial water expands when heated, resulting in a higher water level. Water flows down hill, resulting in currents.
The net effect is that sun warmed equatorial water is always drawing cold water up from the deep to be warmed. Similarly, at the poles, water is being cooled, which subsequently sinks to the bottom, drawing the next batch of warmer surface water to be cooled.
The bottom line is that far from being irrelevant, the oceans are the major feature of the earth thermodynamic system.
Higher salinity values make the water denser. Rising or sinking is a function of temperature and density.
“The team calculated the change in the amount of heat entering the ocean using a state-of-the-art high resolution ocean model… This can serve as a benchmark for climate models on how to improve their projections of future global mean temperature.”
—
They have forged a master model to control all other models:
One Model to rule them all, One Model to find them,
One Model to bring them all and in the deep oceans bind them.
Good word “forged”.
Keyboardproblem
You are obviously an exceptionally good typist as you don´t normally have too look at what you write to check that it came out ok 🙂
The average ocean water temperature is pretty cold (4 or 5 C) so it would be pretty surprising if it didn’t absorb heat and energy.
But to go missing, the heat would have to get from the air through the surface waters, which are often warmer than the air above them.
Still trying to figure out how cold water is an insulator.
“Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models, the research shows that the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean basins has played a significant role in the hiatus.”
Notice how the summary used the word data. In fact, a better more accurate phrase would be numeric output. For Bob Tisdale, using NCDC Argo temps (data), show that both the Pacific and North Atlantic Basins have in fact cooled for the last decade.
Naughty Oceans, go and sit in the corner for a decade.
“But, but… The models made us do it!”
“… data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models”? Gosh, I feel so much better knowing that it’s models all the way down. I’d hate to think they used real data, instead of the climate model results that they laughably call “data” …
w.
Oh, you missed the line where their first state-of-the-art model is “driven by surface observations” giving them an estimate that was compared against some other ocean model-data synthesis and another atmospheric model-data synthesis. I think the idea is that “model-data synthesis” is supposed to be better than “model” but since we don’t know where the “data” is coming from the only reality I see here is the unnamed ocean surface observations driving the model of the first part…
What am I missing? How do the oceans heat up but the land doesn’t?
Who said they don’t?
I wish the climate scientists would publish nude photos of their models. I bet Steve Mac does too.
The use of the term ‘heat uptake’ is a bit confusing. The areas highlighted are also key areas of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. On an annual basis, more heat is lost from these zones than is taken in via insolation. The large ‘uptake’ areas at the western boundaries of the North Pacific and North Atlantic are areas where cold dry winter westerly winds accelerate the loss of heat at the surface. The highlighted areas take their heat from equatorial regions in shallow currents (down to about 200m) driven by wind. They feed into ocean gyres where heat is stored by increasing the depth of the thermocline. In the global warming period, these heat store were increasing and there was also steady transfer to the atmosphere by westerly winds which then warmed the land-masses downwind.
Somehow, these heat stores vary their release of heat in natural oceanic cycles or oscillations. For example, the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre has gained heat at depth since 1980 – but has now started to lose heat. Once the anomalous heat store is exhausted, the surface cools.
All studies that summarise an overall trend or pattern over so many decades obscure the nature of this oscillation – more attention should be paid to the break-points – and I think we are in one for the North Atlantic over the past few years. Likewise the Arctic Ocean has stored heat in the Beaufort Gyre and will now begin to release it.
The Trenberth Effect is a natural pattern that was not predicted by the models because none of the ones used by IPCC have been initialised – ie placed within the pattern. Some such do exist and wherever they have been run, they show either no imminent warming. For example, Hadley Centre decadal forecast initialised to ocean cycles expects no extra warming but warmth maintained at present levels for the next five years. They plead lack of computational resources to extrapolate beyond five years.
As many here have pointed out – the oceans eat heat in regular cycles. What this study shows is that natural cycles are more powerful than AGW and that when they turn downward, so will the global temperature.
My question is where have all these new higher detail maps of ocean temperature come from? I’ve been looking at ocean temps for some years now and they’ve always been low quality with large areas with small anomalies. Now all of a sudden we are getting much higher resolution maps showing much larger anomalies, are they using a new sat of a different method of calculation?