Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle
A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, researchers say.
A specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet below the surface has been accumulating more heat than previously recognized, according to climate researchers from UCLA and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The results were published July 9 in the journal Science.
During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.
In the study, researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array. These measurements show temperatures below the surface have been increasing.
The Pacific Ocean is the primary source of the subsurface warm water found in the study, though some of that water now has been pushed to the Indian Ocean. Since 2003, unusually strong trade winds and other climatic features have been piling up warm water in the upper 1,000 feet of the western Pacific, pinning it against Asia and Australia.
“The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago,” said Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The movement of the warm Pacific water westward pulled heat away from the surface waters of the central and eastern Pacific, which resulted in unusually cool surface temperatures during the last decade. Because the air temperature over the ocean is closely related to the ocean temperature, this provides a plausible explanation for the global cooling trend in surface temperature, Nieves said.
Cooler surface temperatures also are related to a climatic pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which moves in a 20- to 30-year cycle. It has been in a cool phase during the entire time surface temperatures showed cooling, bringing cooler-than-normal water to the eastern Pacific and warmer water to the western side. There currently are signs the pattern may be changing, with observations showing warmer-than-usual water in the eastern Pacific.
“Given the fact the Pacific Decadal Oscillation seems to be shifting to a warm phase, ocean heating in the Pacific will definitely drive a major surge in global surface warming,” Nieves said.
Previous attempts to explain the global surface temperature cooling trend have relied more heavily on climate model results or a combination of modeling and observations, which may be better at simulating long-term impacts over many decades and centuries. This study relied on observations, which are better for showing shorter-term changes over 10 to 20 years.
Pauses of a decade or more in Earth’s average surface temperature warming have happened before in modern times, with one occurring between the mid-1940s and late 1970s.
“In the long term, there is robust evidence of unabated global warming,” Nieves said.
###
Co-authors are Josh Willis and William Patzert of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh yeah – robust evidence that the heat really was hiding in the oceans all along. They will have many scary things to bites their nails about in Paris later this year.
Jim, if I may,
from the Press release quoted above:
“During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.”
Same passage – with some editorial commentary: –
“During the 20th century, (coming out of the Little Ice Age [=LIA])
as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth (one possible explanation – though other readers may like ‘whatever’ took us out of the LIA),
global surface temperatures also increased (and decreased, 1940-1970 ish – was that the GHGs?) .
However, starting in the early 2000s (about the time that many who were/are unsure of the anthropocentric nature of recent temperature change, at least until the widely reported fraudulent ‘adjustments [all going one way!] started to look closely at what was actually happening. Some – not me – certainly had earlier reservations . . .]
though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade (QED – not. So – whisper it in the bazaars, oh Hassan – possibly the GHGs aren’t quite as powerful as the advertising – and proselytising – claims . . . .)
and even cooled a bit.
(I prefer warming – and the truth. I hope I get one.)
Auto, lacking A/C, but looking at his winter quilt stock, and reckoning it OK for even a decade of gentle cooling . . .
Auto – His “Pauses of a decade or more in Earth’s average surface temperature warming have happened before in modern times, with one occurring between the mid-1940s and late 1970s.” statement is a little late. Must have been reading those old GISS & NOAA temperature graph from 2007. Now the graphs show no pause.
These guy have to keep up with adjustments.
DD More the author is a she not a he. Veronica Nieves . And II have made same mistake myself. Now I always look the person up to see what I’m dealing with
michael
I got up last night to use the bathroom and happened to look out the window. Standing at the edge of the woods staring at me was the missing heat! I looked away only for a moment and when I looked back it was gone!
And the missing heat will come back and get us.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0nmOjIUR9kA
Yes, the idea that if the Sun stopped shining, the planet would continue to warm for centuries is preposterous, yet that’s what they seem to be claiming!
Too bad that they don’t understand Occam’s razor and that a lower sensitivity is a far better explanation for the ‘missing heat’.
The End is Near. Repent.
Or not.
Interesting, as Bob Tisdale has shown that the Pacific Basin actually has cooled the last 10 years
Has anybody looked at the AMO lately?
Been in warm phase since around 1995
Hmmm, The current SST is about ~ 26˚ and the temp 300 feet down is around ~10˚ and that 10˚ water is going to warm the surface of the earth up to….. Wait for it….. 10˚?
Warmers are so funny.
Jinghis, good point. I like this:
‘“The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago,”’
Really? That water used to stay home when it wasn’t warm enough? And if the GHG’s only work on the Pacific does that mean the other oceans aren’t affected except by leakage of errant water?
Most of the explanation is gobbledegook. Regional back radiation, extra ocean currents that left home, ARGO heating, statistically indistinguishable OHC changes, ‘pauses with causes’.
how so they know that the ocean didn’t give off heat during the warming between 1975 and 2000? I love how these complex systems only work in one direction..
Exactly.
umm.. and just where did the heat at the 1998 El Nino come from 😉
I totally believe this. I performed an experiment whereupon I [trimmed] in the bathtub. The water became significantly warmer.
Case closed.
Did your comment get trimmed for using a (coarse, at worst) synonym for “urinating”???
If so, that seems a little schoolmarmish… If not, what was the offense?
Not to make too much of it, but there’s plenty of troublesome behavior in comment threads that seems more worthy of moderator attention than using common vocabulary words…
My unsolicited opinion…
[Life happens. .mod]
Ah yes. I have been “trimmed.” However, the excretory function that I noted comes from the opposing orifice, in gaseous form, as opposed to liquid.
Call me unimaginative (“You’re unimaginative!”) but I can only think of one single-word term for the completely natural activity you’ve described. It begins with an “f.” Is that word actually forbidden here? How unexpected.
Sorry for picking the least important aspect of this thread to marvel over… but I can’t quite wrap my head around the thought of forbidding a word that five year olds use often and to great comic effect. Said rule enforcement is made even less comprehensible when considered alongside the fact that allegedly aristocratic British contributing authors are given free reign to very unscientifically attack valid commenters without cause, relevance or understanding… much to the detriment of civil discourse.
It is a puzzlement.
Arrrgghhh. My comment is awaiting moderation. Are all terms relating to bodily waste excretion on a watchlist, no matter how clinical they are? What kind of verbal shoot ’em up went on in these pages in the past? It must have been colorful indeed.
🙂
So the cold water at depth emits infra red that is intercepted and re-radiated back to earth. Gotcha. Perhaps we can have an estimate about how many joules of energy is stored in these cold waters. Oddly, data was not very available prior to the Argo floaters. But shucks, when did real data ever effect stuff??
I just had a revelation. For those warmists who insist that the scientists on there side are honest, and there is not a financial incentive for their side —– Look at the co-author’s organization.
“…climate researchers from UCLA and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.”
So, a guy goes to school to work on JETS, and gets his dream job at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And now, the only way he can pay his bills is bowing down to get grants from the government to study warming in the oceans between 300 and 1000 ft?
If anyone should be studying the temperature between 300 and 1000 ft, it should be NOAA. Likely they already have, but they didn’t find this mysterious heat sink.
I guess you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to be a climate scientist!
perhaps you should amend your terms. rocket scientist is ok. climate scientist may be a contradiction in terms. perhaps climatologist might be more appropriate – like phrenologist, astrologist, ….
cba,
I prefer climatstrologist
[Others use climastrologists. Is that the spelling you intended? .mod]
mod,
I typed too fast and missed the a…
Odd, [no] one mentioned how much warmer the ocean water got.
When all those highly calibrated and unbelievably accurate Argo floats first started measuring ocean temperatures they were found to be showing cooling. Of course, this is obviously wrong and pretty soon the data was tortured into submission. It’s been unbelievably accurate since following all the other unquestionable indicators of global warming:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
Yes, exactly.
How did it work? Simply tossing the data that shows too much cooling:
“I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away”
Of course there is no such Argo float giving too much warming isn’t it?
No this cannot be. Why?
There is a conspiracy of things, that all give too much cooling, to hide the warming from us Again and again and again, temperature, sea level, historical data. I think it must be Skynet at work. The horror!
However our bravest scientists fight continuously with the risk of being promoted and remunerated and correct these bad things.
Wake me up when the adjustments go the other way… I want to see once a trend getting less alarming (and the past getting warmer)…
“Wake me up when the adjustments go the other way”
Yeah, me too, Lars. We’ve got kangaroos hopping around in the snow in the sunshine state this morning:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/thick-snow-blankets-southern-queensland/6626630
And it’s bloody cold, too. If this goes on we’ll be having frost fairs on the Brisbane River.
It’s a lot like when Peter Doran proclaimed to the New York Times that Antarctica wasn’t really cooling even though his peer reviewed study showed that it was: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html
As Strother Martin said in Cool Hand Luke: “You’re gonna get your mind right”
“What we have here is a failure to incinerate”…..
Apologies to Mr. Martin.
Cheers, KevinK
So, they are saying that oceans make the planet colder
at least that is what happens in their models when they write the code that says “oceans keep world cooler” with a toggle switch to throw to get the output “right”
When will the nonsense end?
When will the nonsense end? I am betting on not till the end of the Holocene.
Do the math. Given the mass of the ocean, the “heat” increase corresponds to a 0.04°C temperature increase. How can the Argo array measure the average temperature of the ocean that accurately? Someone’s average body temperature can’t even be measured that accurately.
Due to the larger heat capacity of water vs air, that tiny 0.04 degrees can’t warm up the air very much.
More to the point; due to the second law of thermo, that 0.04 degrees in the water can’t warm the air any more than 0.04 degrees. Are they proposing a Maxwell’s demon?
I always wanted to meet Maxwell’s demon…
To the pseudo-scientists who wrote this nonsense: ever tried to heat the water in your bathtub by heating the air in your bathroom? And?
And? …..it does work, but it does take a long time to accomplish. Most people don’t have the patience to see if it does work. But eventually both the air and the water in the bathtub will equalize.
And climate scientists never conclude that any warming will lead to any catastrophes, right Joel?
Would the tub full of water prevent the air in the bathroom from heating more if a forcing existed?
Joel d
You can heat your bath tub by heating the air in the bathroom, but the problem is the air in this bathroom isnt getting hotter!
Some people do have the patience Joel.
Last night I ran a tub of cold water, straight from the tap and put an electronic differential thermometer in there.
The bath actually started 1 degC warmer than the room.
Six hours later the bath was 1 degC cooler than the room and now, over 14 hours later remains that way even though it is now noon here and the room temp has gone up. The bath is still 1 degC cooler.
Unless you can put a total stop to evaporation, what you say is BS.
The ocean is not a bathtub. Given enough time do you propose the bottom of the ocean will be the same temperature as the top? No. Don’t think of a bathtub when you think about ocean warming because you’re misleading yourself.
I can only speak for my own little observation. Back in the 1990s we bought a water bed. The company that sold it to us asked if we wanted a heater with it (optional). I said yes. A year on, and what neither of us noticed was that the timer that was controlling the heater had given up at some point. It was then I realised that the water in the bed was simply getting to the same temperature as the room, about 19-21c (66-70f). So the two were equalising, as the radiator heated the room, the water in the bed absorbed the heat energy. We never bothered to buy a new timer!
I always found that room temperature for the water bed was a smidgen cool. It does depend on just how much one is isolated from the water though.
A room temp water bed is unworkable, except in the hottest of weather. (maybe)
I usually set mine to 93F (skin temperature).
In winter a degree or two warmer, and in summer a degree or two cooler.
In summer the water would suck the heat right out of you for a nice cool sleep.
But J, your water bed is helping to heat your room! Do you see?
I always cook the potatoes that way, with a burner over the open pan with water.
“It’s warming! I take that back; it’s changing. Change is the thing! I take that back; it’s warming, but it’s hiding in the oceans. I take that back; it’s just natural variability that is causing the warming hiatus. I take that back; it’s been warming all along; an artifact in the data just made it seem there was a hiatus. I take that back; there is a hiatus; it’s been hiding in the oceans and the hiatus will soon end.”
I don’t think it takes a genius to predict that if we have a substantial el nino, atmospheric temperature will tick up.
How many times can one shout “wolf” before folks lose interest in “wolf news”?
“Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle”
No it won’t. It will circulate and be taken to the depths where it will cool. As we have been saying for years, there is a natural buffering to the planet’s climate system. This is it. The air can only get so warm before the oceans absorb it and sink it to the depths. This proves they are wrong about how high the world temps can get.
A research grant was awarded to Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
To study of ocean temperature measurements, The study will show that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, upon release of study,If well received by Climate science peers the grant will be renewed infinitum or the next embarrassing mini ice age.
How can they know what the study will show until they do the study? This is not “SCIENCE” it is a giant heap of bovine anal excrement.
A new research grant was awarded to Veronica Nieves to study the positive feed back of a giant heap of bovine anal excrement on the subtropical multi fly population.
Matt,
Unfortunately, almost all the grant applications now want you to clearly state what your research outcomes will be. I was completely amazed by some of the grant packages I’ve seen.
To me the purpose statement should say something like “to explore the effects of variable x on the system y and isolate any potential uses.” Note this didn’t say there would be any potential uses or even that there would be a measurable effect. Of course you have to discus your experimental design outline so the grant underwriters can be confident you are actually going to be able to accomplish the work. They shouldn’t be stating what results they will find, only their initial hypothesis and how they are going to reliably measure or falsify the predicted effects.
I guess this is a long way of saying – yes it is a giant heap of bovine anal excrement!
Like any virus this CAGW nonsense will die out when the food source is fully consumed. What a deplorable way for fresh students to waste their education and intellect.
Beyond mocking. Beyond stupidity.
Basic engineering calculations. The fact that below 3000′ the ocean temperature is almost completely consistent.
This is making ‘water run uphill’, better yet…dang, I want this. I’ll make heat flow from a -20 F day, INTO my house…keeping it a toasting 80 F. Just making it -25 outside. No one will notice in MN. Brilliant. SHOW ME
THE MECHANISM! (Apologies to Jerry McGuire)
Well I take 42 degree F water, run it through a water to water heat pump removing 5 to 8 degrees (depending on flow) discharging it at 34 to 37 degrees F and heat my in floor heating system with the heat removed from the water. Does that count?
Maybe everyone should use an air to air heat pump during the heating season and we could cool the whole atmosphere and get your -20 F to -25 F differential … 😉 ( LOL just kidding)
It’s disturbing to me how everything hitting the news on climate lately is like “movie” science. It sounds sort of reasonable, so just believe for now and wait to see how the plot weaves it in. Each time they are forced to admit a natural cycle, they invoke the anthropologic theory and claim that “this time it’s different”.
A pre-Paris propaganda push.
The pre-Paris propaganda barrage in the media is almost unbearable.
NOAA I’m looking at you, and I hope congress starts investigating your propaganda activities.
Of course that magical molecule of CO2 can concentrate all of its effect on a small area of ocean hundreds of feet below the surface!
+10. That is how it works in Cargo Cult science.
Those warm areas are an outliner at the extremes. If they were cold outliners, they would have been thrown out.
Or maybe it’s not a coincident that all this ocean heating is happening where there is a lot of volcanic action…
“Is Pacific Warming Related To Volcanoes?”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/is-pacific-warming-related-to-volcanoes/
You do know that is Paul’s page – Paul above your comment?
That blog and info is about the deep ocean bottoms (on average more than 4 km down) where the seawater temperature ranges around 0 to 3C ( it freezes into ice at -2C at deep ocean pressure and salinity). Volcanos warming 0C water to 1C have little to do with water at 22C ( present temp off Queensland at 100 meter depth, per AUS BOM today). Heat fluxes flow from hotter to colder. Laws of thermodynamics, another reason the Nieves PR statements as BS. This study is about the top 300 meters.
Needs to be measured, its likely that hot water exiting from vents is very hot indeed and moving upwards at some speed so until the world spends some money to investigate it we can’t know where it ends up. Not going to happen of course since no study that threatened to show that the ocean was heated by UV and crustal vents rather than down welling infra red would not get funding.
Unless of course the reasearchers were to play the funding committees at their own game and tell them what the results of their research would be, namely that co2 would be found to be the cause, then when they publish the study, show the real cause instead. Mind you they’d then lose their jobs and not get any further funding.
Here’s a serious idea: How much would it cost if we started a fund to put in a worldwide network of temperature monitors with data-loggers? We could ensure their validity by correct location, so no adjustments necessary.
i would chip in for that. some in the oceans,east ,west and middle, with temp sensors every 100 feet . constantly recording ,top sensor below the max depth of wave penetration for longevity and removal of hazard to shipping.
It’s plausible they just described ENSO.