It has been quite entertaining to watch the various explanations coming out to rationalize “the pause” in surface temperatures for the last 16 years. For example, as Jerome Ravetz points out to me in email, The Times Hannah Devlin says the warming has just gone into hiding.
But there is a funny thing about that deep ocean warming.
As Bob Tisdale wrote:
Ever since the NODC released their ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-2000 meters and published Levitus et al (2012), it seems that each time a skeptic writes a blog post or answers a question in an interview, in which he or she states that global surface temperatures haven’t warmed in “X” years, a global warming enthusiast will counter with something to the effect of: global warming hasn’t slowed because ocean heat content continues to show warming at depths of 0-2000 meters. Recently, those same people are linking Balmaseda et al (2013) and claiming the warming of ocean heat content data continues.
It is true that the NODC’s ARGO-era ocean heat content (0-2000 meters) continues to warm globally, but always recall that the ARGO data had to be adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create that warming. That is, the “raw” ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters shows the decreased rate of warming after the ARGO floats were deployed. (See the post here.) Also, while the much-revised NODC ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters might show warming globally, it shows very little warming for the Northern Hemisphere oceans since 2005. See Figure 1.
Figure 1
Can well-mixed human-created greenhouse gases pick and choose between the hemispheres, warming one but not the other? One might think that’s very unlikely.
Something else to consider: the Northern Hemisphere warming of ocean heat content for depths of 0-2000 meters occurs in only one ocean basin, and it’s not one of the big ones.
Right there is a premise falsifier. But I find this figure even more interesting:
There was a comparatively minor warming in the Northern Hemisphere at depths of 0-2000 meters from 2005 to 2012. But the upper 700 meters in the Northern Hemisphere cooled. The difference is provided to show the additional warming that occurred at depths of 700 to 2000 meters.
Figure 2
So the question here is simple. As Hannah Devlin writes in the Times:
The pause in global warming during the past decade is because more heat than expected is being absorbed by the deep oceans, according to scientists.
How does that heat get to the deep ocean hidey hole, down to 2000 meters, without first warming the upper 700 meters in transit? That’s some neat trick.
You can read more on how that deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t seem to hold up when the data is examined carefully here.
The claim has been made that its the sun doing it:
[Tisdale] SkepticalScience’s Rob Painting provides a reasonable explanation of the hypothetical cause of greenhouse gas-driven warming of the global oceans in the post Observed Warming in Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation. Painting writes (my boldface):
Arguably the most significant climate-related impact of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is that they trap more heat in the ocean. Over the last half-century around 93% of global warming has actually gone into heating the ocean. A little-known fact is that the oceans are almost exclusively heated by sunlight (shortwave radiation) entering the surface layers.
Back in 2009 it was claimed that solar radiation changes would do just that:
Well Duncan, we are still here, speaking clearly to the issue.
That article was a reaction to this Judith Lean Paper in GRL (bold mine):
=============================================================
How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean, David H. Rind Article first published online: 15 AUG 2009 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL038932
Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 ± 0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify our global and regional temperature projections.
==================================================================
Since that obviously hasn’t happened, and “the pause” is an inconvenient truth, the cheerleaders are looking for alternate explanations. Voila! The deep ocean hidey hole.
The ocean provides the perfect cover for global warming because unlike the atmosphere, few people experience it directly. Few people go diving down to 2000 meters with thermometers and few people go swimming in the ocean with pH meters to check the claims of “ocean acidification”.
On the other hand, virtually the whole of humanity can and has experienced “the pause” in air temperatures.
When the deep ocean hidey hole doesn’t pan out in a few years, and that stored hidden warming doesn’t spring out of the deep ocean like a caged lion, where will they put the warming next? They are running out of places.




Either energy accumulated from a radiative imbalance is significantly distributed to the ocean depths or it is not. If it is, it’s not going to reassemble in the surface layer. Not without breaking the second law of thermodynamics, anyway.
With such poorly sub-sampled data, both in space and time, I would doubt anything other than a very broad guess would be a truely valid scientific conclusion.
The implication that measurements of the vertical temperature profile- to depths down to 2000 metre- using instruments like those used in the ARGO Programme really is quite laughable.
Even when working faultlessly, the pressure drift accuracy of the buoys is specified at +/-1.3dbar (+/-13metre), implying a temperature accuracy of about +/-0.065ºC (at 700m in 35ºlat waters).
Again, even when working faultlessly the pressure sensor sensitivity is not time invariant, the transducer normally becomes less sensitive, causing the instrument to overestimate depth and thereby give an increasing positive temperature error (at depth).
But the ARGO floats don’t have a history of working faultlessly. Many- those using transducers made by one supplier- are prone to a leak which causes an increase in the pressure sensitivity and an increasingly negative bias. The bias can be detected from near surface measurements (by an indication of positive altitude) and a bias adjustment applied, but the adjustment for sensitivity change is little more than guesswork.
The pressure error can be as much as -65dbar (-650 m) at -2000m depth.
So the claims of Balmaseda and Trenberth of temperature shifts of a few thousands of a degree Celsius per year in the profiles at depths between -700m and -2000m should be treated skeptically.
LOL. Pointman on the pause.
“CO2 has no means of making the atmosphere putting extra energy into the ocean. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly do to make the surface (and the ocean) warmer is restrict the total energy going out of the ocean, from the surface up. ”
Kristin,
Don’t you know that Co2 is a magical gas? There is nothing that it cannot do.
***
Earl Wood says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:36 am
Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat.
***
Quite right. “Heat” diffused/dispersed into massive volumes of cold water isn’t any threat when that water is well below the avg earth temperature.
***
Earl Wood says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:36 am
Blaming the lost heat on the ocean seems like a loosing argument to me, not b/c it is necessarily wrong, but b/c it makes AGW no longer a threat.
***
In addition, I don’t see how CO2 “heat” can possibly make it to the depths. The CO2 IR can’t penetrate like solar SW — it’s absorbed in the first few millimeters, and so is manifested immediately as water surface temp and increased water vapor.
Talk about desperate. That`s a bunch of nonsense.
“””””…..Phil says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:27 pm
george e. smith said on July 24, 2013 at 9:22 pm:
@ur momisugly Phil ?? Which Phil ??
(snip)
So which Phil are you, because the real one fully understands that ??
Did you miss the /sarc tag? ;)…..”””””
I plead total ignorance; besides my eyes aren’t what they used to be !
There is a plausible answer for why decade or multi-decadal pauses in warming were known by climate scientists but not shared with the press and it is called money. That is the real head in the sand action taking place here. See no evil, hear no evil
Mmmmm….Murphy’s… .” [Ro Ha! at 10:50PM 7/24/13]
LOL, an’ ye’re pint is? #[;)]
“I don’t give a rip about heat in the oceans.” [Iron Argonaut (emphasis mine)]
Loved your refreshingly blunt post.
Yeah, I think most of us DO NOT GIVE A FIG about the ocean heat thing, just arguing the issue to show how wrongheaded the “science” behind it is. And that refuting is a good thing — there are many people reading WUWT who NEED this education.
We have been, as your fine post underscores, intentionally overlooking the underlying reality (silently granting it ad argumentum — but, I’ll shout out the truth, here) that:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE — NONE — THAT HUMAN CO2 HAS CAUSED ANY CHANGE IN GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE (OR HEAT).
That is: “Where has the imaginary heat gone to, girls and boys?” is a question said with a smile by any sane person [hence all the /sarc’s and humor above]. Nevertheless, because the Fantasy Science Club has convinced some people that it knows what it is talking about, the excellent scientific arguments are presented above.
And, Iron Argonaut, I hope you realize that most of my comment here was simply elicited by your nice summary and is not an attempt to help YOU understand… . (just said that to avoid, I hope!, offending you)
BTW — you may just prefer to write in understated, non-bolded, text, but, if your personality is reflected in your strong writing style, you might enjoy an occasional bold for emphasis (I LOVE IT — too much, ahem). If so, click on “Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT” on the right side of this page, scroll down to his tips on html formatting. And have fun!
**************************
@ur momisugly A Cementhead — I AM SO GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE BACK!! Hurrah! #[:)] — great practical advice, too; hope that guy (whom Eric S. was writing about) reads it!
Konrad says:
July 24, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Or Konrad try making moon tea. Since plastic will pass IR get a plastic gallon jar fill with water and some tea bags. Set outside at night in summer. Full moon if you wish then let the 343 W/sqr meter of DWLWIR make the tea. It should be as warm as the sun tea made during the day using a glass container and the 168 W/sqr meter of sunshine. : )
mkelly says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:57 am
——————————————————-
It is indeed possible to make “Moon Tea” all that is required is one of these –
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~helio/images/figure1array.JPG
However the traditional “Japanese Tea Ceremony” method of taking too much time and equipment to produce tepid tea has the advantage of being slightly cheaper.
@Janice Moore
Thanks for the exclamation mark after the Ha. It comes close to expressing the contemptuous snort which is my usual response to almost everything these days. I think I will start using it as my screen name.
Glad you liked that, Ha! My pleasure. #[:)]
Sometimes, I think mine should be LAUGH-OUT-LOUD (at MORE nonsense from the “scientists say” gang).
The Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam has demonstrated one thing anyway.
You cannot fix stupid. I note a few Warmists doing their best to show that in action. How can these numbskulls keep on blurting out the tired line that anyone who doesn;t buy it, must be funded by big business? Even a cursory examination shows the money is in the Warmist camp, and so too most governments, big corporations and especially Banksters who are licking their lips at the Carbon Trading derivatives. I’ve not seen any evidence of big oil or anyone you’d think likely to want to, paying money for people to deny this rubbish. Why would they? At its best the only thing the hoax will do is ensure higher prices, for them. It isn’t going to reduce the use of fossil fuels or industry and even if it does, they will just charge more.
You can’t change the climate by paying a tax.
For the record though, if there are any big corporations or indeed anyone who would like to pay me to debunk and deny the AGW hoax, I am well versed in the subject, scientifically inclined and would work tirelessly to debunk the rubbish for a fee. By all means feel free to contact me and make an offer. 🙂
The formal term is “special pleading.”
[snip – off topic rant with capitals, GMO, etc. – mod]
My comments are being pre-moderated at The Guardian, I am so proud… 🙂
I am starting to think the Oceans have been under represented with the global warming question. There is a lot of good information at Jeff Id’s Heat Content/Capacity article and discussion. The Oceans ability to bring the cold when it mixes. Perhaps it hasn’t been doing that mixing as much over the last 100 or so years.
Having a look at the Wood For Trees website, the closest I could find is the Sea Surface Temperatures which perhaps shows the transition or boundary between the Atmosphere and Oceans, where a transfer of energy might be.
I arrived at this extremely amateur plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:150/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:150
Roughly put, the SSTs are above or equal to the Land temperatures from 1860 to about 1975. The two lines then swap places after that date. During the other rise on the plot, 1910 to 1940 they don’t flip, but move closer to flipping, to about the same value.
My chemistry student son doesn’t like it when I tell him things like Iron wants to turn into Iron Oxide. He doesn’t like the phrase ‘wants to’. Nevertheless, perhaps since 1975, the SST wants to pull the Global Mean temperature of the Atmosphere to its temperature. Looking at 1940 to the present, the SST wants to straighten that Global Mean temperature line.
If we try to figure out which line would be pulling the other, we’d ask, which one has the heat capacity? The Oceans. Which one uptakes a lot of Solar? The Oceans.
I understand we need better data because the SST is a questionable proxy here for the totality of the Oceans. What could be the significance of the flip in 1975? And the almost flip during 1910 to 1940? Perhaps the Oceans are signaling us as to what they are doing? Are they working to raise or lower the Global Mean atmospheric temperatures?
It seems to depend on how much are the Oceans mixing, bringing up cold water, which I know very little about.