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.
Add I understand it, the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the air. That means that we would have to be measuring a change of 0.0007C a century, or 0.000007C a year, as opposed to the apparent change of the air of 0.007C a year.
Figures of this magnitude are just not measurable, nor should they be of concern.
Now only if Southern California could start planning mitigation efforts of its inevitable and coming separation from the North American plate to become a Pacific Island.
Can someone explain to me how the oceans can be warming at the same time that the poles are supposed to be releasing all that glacier melt into ocean? The same winds that drive all that heat down deep ought to be mixing that glacier melt in with it, wouldn’t they?
This entire ‘ocean ate the heat’ pitch seems contrived and contradictory to me – a case of simply working backwards from a conclusion. It is at least a case of moving the goal posts.
Hot water will sink if it evaporates and the salt becomes more concentrated so that the density is less than the colder water. I think that the density under the Arctic ice is a lot less than sea water south of the Arctic circle. The melting glaciers though, ought to be diluting the surface waters and slowing the NA current (suddenly freezing the mammoths?). I guess that with a lot of variable parameters you could get the ocean to eat the heat or spew it out, or get that mammoth to do sign language with its trunk.
Joel, thanks.
It seems to me that the goalposts have been galloping across the landscape, hither and yon, for a decade or more.
Of course the ‘science is settled’ [apart from the bits we don’t know, I think], but the excuses vary according to the weather.
Can someone help me: is it economics where test paper questions are the same year to year, but the answers change; and sociology where the questions change, but the answers are immutable? Or vice versa. Or are both true – varying according to the weather – for what is still called ‘climate science’?
And will there be a nice juicy trial of some of the leading protagonists?
Auto – not holding my breath.
The pink zones are busy radiating heat to the atmosphere (and beyond). This is appalling science. I guess with the new models we can retire thermodynamics.
I wonder why the oceans didn´t bother to absorb any heat during the period from 1980 to 2000?
Were they busy doing something else?
The oceans were busy with Natalie Wood etc. Or was that Robert Wagner? Oohh.
I wonder, just how long would Magdalena keep her job if she didn’t keep up with the AGW meme and come up with so many reasons for ‘continued study’.
I just wonder what her accuracy rate is with ECMWF…
According to the map, the areas of apparent strong absorption seem to be very well known areas of turbulent flow where strong ocean currents separate from land. Areas of turbulence like this are precisely where models are going to be least reliable as they suck at predicting turbulent flow. And data is going to be unreliable there as well as it isn’t going to be possible to easily differentiate between water warming or cooling, and a change of current bringing warmer or cooler water into a region. Once again the effect being discussed is claimed to exist in a place where data is unreliable and difficult to interpret, and where models break down.
Since the article doesn’t mention CO2, it’s factually correct.
If a suspect gives you 25 false alibis, but then gives you one that checks out, it’s not an excuse, it’s the truth.
Ocean absorption of heat is the reason why global warming is no longer happening.
Nice of that switch to come on in the middle of it all. Can someone please turn it off once the policies are set.
Right, so what is the temperature supposed to be, and how do you know?
Proof?
How do we know this model checks out? Oh right, another model says so.
How do we know that other model is correct? Shut up, they explained.
We can validate any model by comparing it to established first principles (other models).
For example: https://www.edx.org/course/thermodynamics-iitbombayx-me209x#.VIDXs3l0yUk
so tell me…..exactly how does this heat drawdown relate to the past 18 years?…and the 18 years prior to that?
These morons don’t realize what they are saying……..
An interesting data point would be a comparison of the total heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to the oceans. I believe that this will be a staggering difference and show that the air can heat and cool significantly without much impact on the ocean total heat content just due to the difference in heat capacity.
Dr. Bob, you are correct that there is a staggering difference. However, it actually means that the atmosphere is the thermodynamic slave of the land & sea. The air can’t significantly heat or cool the oceans.
Ocean: mass = 1.4×10 ^21 kg, Cp ~= 4185 J/kg/K, T = 273K (assuming 90% of total volume is below thermocline), E = 1.6 x 10^27 J
Energy(ocean) = 1280x Energy(atmosphere)
Yep Dr. Bob,
Another way to say this is “atmospheric heating/cooling is moderated by the oceans.” Which (as has been pointed out at WUWT before) is a big problem for the DOOOOOOM!!! peddlers.
talldave2,
Let me put this in perspective since you seem very emotional about this.
AGW is impossible because of about a dozen reasons. The proponents of AGW just admitted to one of those reasons. Don’t criticize them for it. Smile softly and say “yes of course, the oceans absorb heat”
Current absorption of solar energy.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
Heat capacity of air: 0.24 Btu/lb-F
Heat capacity of liquid water: 1.0 Btu/lb-F
Latent heat of water evaporation/condensation: 1,000 +/- Btu/lb
Changes in relative humidity carry a lot of heat without changing the air temperature. An explanation of a model I found associated with IPCC AR4 assumed static relative humidity. I don’t consider that to be a valid assumption.
There have been several articles recently on under ocean volcanic activity. And there was the Antarctic ice sheet of a year ago. Glaciers melt from the heat of the earth, not the heat of the air. I don’t think ocean floor geothermal heat flux gets near the credit it is due. And IPCC AR5 TS.6 admits they don’t know the ocean below 2,000 meters which is the bottom half.
I’ve always wondered about that. Air catastrophically heats the oceans to a detectable level but molten rock pouring out of the ridges in the middle of those same oceans is ignored.
Agreed – deep ocean heating is a huge unknown. There is no good reason to believe that it will stay constant over decadal periods.
I’d be interested to know where that heat comes from. Possible candidates: tidal forces; low-grade nuclear fission, residual from the deep past…
You seem to be asking why is Earth’s core hot. The answer is the same as for stars and other planets: gravitational collapse. Material came together and was heated by the collision. For example, they believe that at one point, a small planetoid crashed into Earth, liquefying the Earth completely. The remnant of that planetoid became the moon.
Good points. We can only hope they will devote more resources to find out what is going on under the oceans. My instincts tell me we will be surprised by the impacts.
Even if true the oceans aren’t separate from the earth. It doesn’t explain the “hiatus” it might partially explain why humans aren’t warming the planet. These idiots are acting like if it wasn’t for those pesky oceans our models would be right, like the oceans are some gimmick and not related to the rest of reality.
Why only now during the pause, and not before? Fails logical thinking 101. Modeling different ocean mechanisms for the ‘oceans swallowed the missing heat’ Trenberthian pause explanation (on which Balmaseda was a co-author) does not help with the glaring larger defect. Covered in essay Missing Heat and again in essay Unsettling Science in Blowing Smoke.
I presume now that they realize their models should have included deep-ocean uptake of the heat, they will re-think whether the warming observed in the 1980s-1990s was real or just deep-ocean release of heat?
No, this is perfect, don’t you see? Now they just have to come up with a model that predicts (with zero accuracy) the propensity of the oceans to absorb or release heat. And voila,
IT’S ABOUT TO BE WORSE THAN EVER BEFORE!!
again.
The climate models predict that the temperature of the surface of the earth should be much higher than it is. Therefore heat must have gone missing.
Of course, the simpler solution is to just admit that the climate model are wrong.
But the “hotheads” can’t do that. That make them look like fools — not to mention the loss in income.
The only way they can claim that the models have not been falsified is to claim the heat the models predict is hiding — where? — in the oceans.
These ‘hotheads” believe in two things all of the time. They believe in whatever benefits them the most and they believe in their own superiority. Therefore in their own minds the papers they write are not crap but important “science”.
Eugene WR Gallun
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
You only need to fool a simple majority.
This is all just a snowjob designed to keep the faithful happy and still on-board. The Oceans did not “Eat” any warming of note at all, it is mostly just simply “missing”.
Now that Ocean Heat Content for the Third Quarter of 2014 is available, some up-to-date charts can be presented.
The deep Ocean down to 2000 metres is accumulating 0.64 W/m2/year of Energy (0.72 10^22 joules per year).
Sounds like a lot. But it is nothing compared to how many extra joules are supposed to be accumulating because of Greenhouse Gases like CO2. Those numbers are accumulating at 2.94 W/m2/year compared to the 1995 level. So the oceans at 0.64 W/m2/year “ate” the 2.91 W/m2/year of GHGs??? or the 1.8 W/m2/year that should be showing up if we use the IPCC’s estimates for Aerosols offset. Let me see, 0.64? 2.94?? 1.8?? Nope those are not the same numbers.
http://s16.postimg.org/jttrj0hdh/OHC_vs_GHG_1955_to_3rd_2014.png
There is no “eating” of the energy or the oceans absorbing more energy causing a pause. The GHG forcing is “Missing” or it was never there in the first place or it simply went back out to space just as fast as it was supposedly accumulating.
http://s12.postimg.org/8y9lb4te5/OHC_vs_Missing_Energy_1955_to_3rd_2014.png
The warmers were never very good at math and that is why they ended up in the climate science profession where they can just make stuff and nobody in their profession can double-check them because nobody works with real numbers anyway – just computer models. Ad obviously some tech is actually running the models because the climate scientists surely couldn’t do it by themselves).
Bill, you are the most consistently good commenter here.
I second Roger. The warmists are out so far on limb now. Hate to be there, but there own lack of character and integrity toward their science put them there. Let them sink as the Earth cools.
Sorry, I’m kind of old school. Still stuck w/Btus. Btu/english hours, kJ/metric hours
Just to put these energy values in perspective.
3,412 Btu/h = 1 kW or 3.412 Btu/h = 1 W
0.64 W/sq m = 2.18 Btu/h/sq m
Increasing the RH of 50 F air from 20% to 80% absorbs almost 5 Btu/lb of air – without a temperature increase!! More clouds.
And 0.64 is what % of the 240 W/sq m surface radiation? 0.27%!! That’s simply noise in the Oort cloud of data uncertainty.
All those threatening climate change statistics have to be modeled into statistical constructs because they are impossible to actually measure.
Hang on a minute, Bill. Some of the forcing will have gone into surface/atmospheric warming. Let’s assume for a moment that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity (2xCO2) is correct, i.e. CS is 2.5 degrees per doubling. This equates to a sensitivity of ~0.7 degrees per watt/m2. Therefore, warming since mid 20th century accounts for about (just under) 1 watt per m2.
We still have a TOA imbalance, though – that’s why the oceans are continuing to warm. You have given a figure of 0.64 w/m2 which, assuming the IPCC is correct, implies a total net forcing of ~1.64 watts/m2. Not too much different from the 1.8 w/m2 estimate after allowing for aerosols.
However, I believe the aerosol effect is exaggerated (quite a bit) and that 20th century warming has accounted for a greater proportion of the ghg forcing. If I am correct then this means climate sensitivity is lower. For example, if the aerosol effect is negligible and we have a 0.64 w/m2 imbalance then around 2.3 w/m2 is (2.94 – 0.64) responsible for the warming to date. This leads to a sensitivity of roughly 0.3 degrees per watts/m2. Much lower and very much in line with the “no feedback” sensitivity of 1.2 degrees per 2xCO2.
They finally figured out that the reason that we are still here, is that the oceans are there to moderate, on a grand scale, the temperature of the air, if it is deranged by any source whatever. They think the cause is CO2, but is isn’t. It’s business as usual.
No they haven’t “finally figured out” any such thing. The Charney report from 1979 discussed at some length the potential capacity of the oceans to absorb energy and concluded that there were unknowns involved when projecting the path of surface temperature increases.
You’re not going to get anywhere by implying that the AGWers are idiots. They’re not.
“Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models,”
…lost my confidence right there.
What I don’t get about this whole claim that the oceans are eating up all the heat, and thus are responsible for the hiatus in warming, is that it completely undermines any notion that we are facing a climate emergency.
The oceans, after all, are a tremendous heat sink. The amount of actual ocean warming experienced is measured in thousandths of degrees. The amount of ocean heat absorption needed to keep the hiatus on indefinite pause is miniscule. If this is how warming works, we won’t be facing any real warming for hundreds, even thousands of years. So we have all the time in the world to create new technologies and all kinds of mitigation and so on. Emergency over. No need for any kind of restrictions on carbon emissions for centuries to come. It’s great news for everyone but those people making a living off the “crisis” management message.
But no one touting this explanation for the hiatus ever mentions this. They just remind us that the oceans won’t be able to do this forever. Well, sure, not forever, but for long enough that we can pretty much disregard the whole problem and let the natural evolution of technology lead us to better energy solutions long before there’s any real need for serious action.
So, it’s good news really. Emergency over! We can all get back to work.
You silly skeptic – as northern hemisphere oceans become warmer, great white sharks will migrate further north until, probably within the next decade, they’ll eat all the polar bears, obviously!
..and all this time I thought CO2 was only supposed to warm the planet a tiny little bit…
the tipping point was supposed to create run away water vapor
Just the kind of study climate “psientists” love.
No thermometers, no data, just models.
Must be right!
Why can’t academics speak proper and not talk like pretentious jerks.
It’s not a hiatus but a pause.
Wait…….are they admitting to the “pause”
As I understand it. the oceans are mainly heated by direct solar radiation. I suspect that some heat is added via undersea volcanoes. Elsewhere, it has been stated that radiated IR from carbon dioxide can only affect the very top layer (few microns) of the ocean. The net effect is to increase evaporation, thus causing a small amount of cooling at the surface (via loss of latent heat).
An earlier post by Genghis noted: “Solar shortwave radiation though, is absorbed in the ocean and warms it. The ‘regulator’ for that is clouds. More clouds mean ocean cooling, less clouds mean ocean warming.”
Non-solar radiative forcing has little to do with the oceans heating.
If CO2 absorbs LWIR it can not emit IR. Some energy must be lost. The emitted radiation has to be in the radar/microwave spectrum. Like those microwaves in the kitchen we use to heat water.
And the empirical evidence they have for this is? Let me guess models all the way , and no actual measurement data at all.
Classic climate ‘science’ BS to keep the funding flowing .
I good guess, I think – NASA now has the capability of measuring global CO2, similar to Japan’s Ibuki GOSAT(link) , I think , but NASA is currently using computer algorithms to determine atmospheric CO2 concentration and distribution.
George Hunt’s video includes audio of Edmund de Rothschild’s 1987 reference to the possible use of Irving Mintzer’s theory of CO2-dependent warming when Rothschild proposes trapping CO2 in a dry ice machine and transporting it to the Arctic to keep the ice from melting – around 31:00. Mintzer is an economist with a PhD in energy and resources, UN, carbon credit investment and green industry ties, and his theory is based on a computer model and no climate science.
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html
https://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/Unced1992GeorgeHunt/GeorgeHuntOnUnced.mp4
This is the nub of the problem.
How come the oceans decided to absorb the “excess heat” some 10~18 years ago and what is the process that made the seas “suddenly” decide to do this ?
bingo…………..
Big International Non-Governmental Organizations?
You may be on to something…
A variation in cloud cover has been documented and is the likely cause.
roger….I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around a cause for something that didn’t happen
It’s cold down there.
Who said they “suddenly” started absorbing heat? You’re putting words into their mouths, knocking down a straw man of your own making.
I suspect the climate science community will explain the appearance of the heatsucking pause as an effect of the “unprecedented” warmer temperatures — that is the heatsucking effect is stronger at higher temperatures — followed up by increasingly frantic efforts to explain why this phenomenon isn’t going to moderate the entire CAGW conjecture into irrelevance.
You do realize that heat flow is directly proportional to delta T, right? In your words, the heat sucking effect is INDEED stronger at higher DELTA temperatures.
However, the oceans are generally warmer than the atmosphere, so the atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans. If & when the atmosphere ever gets warmer than the water, the difference in heat capacity means that the excess energy in the air is quickly absorbed by the water, with very little change in water temperature.
If you didn’t know that heat flow is directly proportional to delta T, you should either refrain from criticizing what you do not understand or take a course like https://www.edx.org/course/thermodynamics-iitbombayx-me209x#.VIDXs3l0yUk