Oceans slowed global temperature rise, scientists report

Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle

(Note: this is the press release that hit Eurekalert today for Nieves et al., which we covered last week – Anthony)

From the University of California – Los Angeles

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.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Oceans slowed global temperature rise, scientists report

  1. 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!

    • 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’.

  2. Interesting, as Bob Tisdale has shown that the Pacific Basin actually has cooled the last 10 years

  3. 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’.

  4. 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..

    • 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]

        • 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.
      🙂

  5. 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??

  6. 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.

      • 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]

  7. 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)…

      • “What we have here is a failure to incinerate”…..
        Apologies to Mr. Martin.
        Cheers, KevinK

    • 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”

  8. researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array.

    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?

  9. 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.

  10. “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”?

  11. “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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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.

  14. 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)

  15. 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.

    • 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.

  16. 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.

  17. So isn’t this a natural experiment for climate sensitivity? This year’s El Niño will either ramp global temperatures up to a new level, like the 1998 El Niño, or give us a short-term temperature spike and drop us back onto the same thermal plateau, like the 2010 El Niño. Given the generally negative PDO and inactive sun, the former would suggest a stronger climate sensitivity to AGHGs than the latter. Suspense.

  18. I understand how oscillations in ocean currents can bring about warming and cooling from storage or release of heat that entered the ocean originally as visible-UV light, but how does infrared radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2 cause cyclical warming? Wouldn’t the downwelling infrared radiation be nearly constant on annual timescales and not be cyclical in any way? Did they suggest a mechanism for how downwelling IR is cyclical? Does physics take days off?

    • Even better: Downwelling IR cannot penetrate the surface skin layer of the body of water. Any IR hitting the surface just adds to evaporation potential of the skin layer and has the effect of cooling the water.
      Put an IR heat lamp over a bucket of water – the temperature will not budge. Do the same with an ultraviolet light of the same intensity (warning: don’t enter the room while such a bright UV source is active) and you will find the bucket temperature increases. Of course you have to be sure there is no (or little) visible spectrum energy in the lamp output as visible light will also warm water.

  19. nice that it is no longer the aerosols that did it beteen 1945 and 1970
    time to reprograme ur models boys

  20. Just did a little figuration based on figures from the paywalled paper than Earthobservatory.NASA.gov now has on line. Paper facts. The maximum anomaly found from 2003-2012 (second EO.nasa.gov figure) is about 0.15C/year at about 150 meters; the average is less. The maximum areal extent of the anomaly is about 3x Australia in the 100-200 meter layer (first EO.nasa.gov figure).The upper and lower layers are less, although the areal extent is more diffuse.
    Some additional simple facts. The surface density of seawater is ~1027kg/cubic meter, and its heat capacity is 3850 J/ (kg delta 1degree C). Australia comprises 1346200 square km (rounded to 1.4 million for figuration). The missing heat in Trenberth’s 2013 paper explaining the pause-GCM difference was ~7.25E+22 joules (essay Missing Heat).
    So, Nieves anomalously warm water volume is ~ 3* 1.4E+6 square km* 1E+6 square meters/square km* 3E+2 meters depth, or ~1.26 E+15 cubic meters.
    Now, a temperature anomaly <0.15degrees C max is <0.15* 3.85E+3 J/kg* 1.027E+3 kg/cubic meter, or <5.9E+5 Joules/cubic meter.
    So, the heat Nieves et. al. measured using Argo is ~1.26E+15 cubic meters* <5.9E+5 J/cubic meter, or <~7.4E+20 Joules per year. So something less than 7.4E+21 Joules over the full decade (1E+1 years).
    This means Nieves measured <7.4E+21/7.25E+22 or about E-1 or ~10% of what Trenberth said was missing from the pause/model discrepancy.
    I call BS on the UCLA press release and double BS on Nieves' statements in it about having found the missing heat which will restart and restore the previous warming trend. Absolute nonsense. It simply does not figurate. BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
    And that is before considering actual temps at these depths and realizing this "heat" is not going to warm anything at the surface. Water gets colder with depth, the EA.nasa.gov figure 2 anomaly is relative cold at different depths. Triple BS on Nieves statements.

    • Trenberth’s model is off by a decimal point, and so the earths average temperature (if they stop adjusting the data) will actually be 0.2 °C warmer by 2100.

  21. Seriously? They’ve never heard of “El Niño” before?
    They must be “climate scientists”.

  22. I never believed in magic – until now. “The atmosphere stops warming – the surface water remains cool – but the Argo floats show layers under 300 m warming”. The “obvious” inference is that the missing heat has gone there!!!!
    Well, isn’t that magic??

  23. It appears NASA and the NOAA aren’t properly communicating the narrative with one another.

  24. “In the long term, there is robust evidence of unabated global warming,” Nieves said.
    There is no real evidence of much of anything. The surface temperature data sets have been bastardized to the point of total uselessness and they are working on doing the same to any ocean historical records.
    Besides that, how does anyone claim that heat “hides” in the deep ocean? After all, we think the near surface ocean temps have been cooling so the heat must have taken a dive. (an the authors of this story seem to have taken a dive also)

    • “how does anyone claim that heat “hides” in the deep ocean? ”
      Mark; The heat stole Batmans cape. That is how it’s hiding. I learned of it from very reliable sources, I’ll have you know.
      michael

  25. What remains wholly unexplained here is how heat gets “trapped” below the surface…and then mysteriously “begins moving up” in a thermally stratified ocean. Sadly, such aphysical notions are par for the course in “climate science.”

  26. How these numbskulls can be allowed to go around calling themselves scientists is beyond me. First we have back radiation, now they also claim we can have back diffususion. The surface of the ocean is warmer than water at depth, so how can heat be hiding down there? Heat flow goes from hotter to colder. Always! The surface cools first

  27. OK then. One silly question for the group here.
    If any excess heat “caused by CO2” goes into the ocean and hides in the deep portions of the ocean; then what is the worry? It would take millions of years to overheat the ocean would it not?
    NOTE: I don’t believe that CO2 heated anything, I’m just going with the logic of the paper in question.

  28. A question. I was under the impression that the AGW theory required the mid-troposphere to heat up due to all the horrible CO2 humans were excreting. But if the heat is missing in the mid-troposphere, how did it get to the ocean layers and wouldn’t that negate the AGW ‘theory’?

  29. I have decided to accept this hypothesis so I have set up my experiment. But I must be doing something wrong. I am trying to heat warmer water with colder water in my pool by stirring up the bottom cold water with a broom after it has sat in the Sun for a while, convinced that my pool must be absorbing visible wavelengths, and short and longwave infrared, storing some of it at the bottom, just like the study says it does. I did however notice that when I took a break from my broom mixing to sip a Long Island Ice Tea, the calm top layer begins to heat up again. Again and again, trial after trial, interspersed with glass after glass, the only thing that shappens is that the original shemperature of the top warmer shater goesh down, not up after my furioush effort to stir things up. Thinking that thish was the sopportune time to warm it up shome more I hash shuriously mished the pool again wish my broom. Alash, the shermometer at the shurface again goes in the wrong shirection. I am shutterly shausted from my eshorts to shix the bottom shater wish the shop shater in an effort to warm it shup. On the (hick) upshide I shended (hick) up shipping a (hick) a (hick) few shong Islands, shtill low and b’hold, I don no longer gshive a dinker’s tam about my hyp–hyth—mypsothesis.

  30. Whatever the temperatures turn out to be in reality – you just know they are going to fiddle them upwards anyway, which is the depressing part.
    It really will take an Ice Age to put these people in their place.

    • As I’ve said before, come the year 2100, science will “discover” that pure water actually freezes at 2° C!

      • Is there a sarc tag missing ? Plenty of YouTube videos showing water below 0° C then tap the bottle and it freezes in a few seconds.

  31. “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.”
    So between 91.5 and 305 metres. Hmm, that’s a large non-specific range so where is this magic layer?
    Doesn’t show up in the JMA Pacific Depth-Time Cross Sections since 1991. And all other ENSO indicators are up and down like a widow’s drawers, broadly in line with surface conditions. Including the PDO which may have just turned and not forgetting OLR. The convective by-pass valve is pretty much open full bore right now. Hence the big whirly things travelling west whistling a vaguely Spanish tune.

  32. The Indian Ocean 0-2000 metres increased in temperature by 0.1C from 1955 to 2014.
    So, an average of 0.0017C per year.
    I don’t see how any surface warming was avoided by this tiny warming rate and I don’t see how climate science could not have foreseen that the oceans would absorb a very tiny amount of the warming expected at the surface (not unless the climate scientists were completely illiterate when it came to ocean-atmosphere interactions).
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-i0-2000m.dat

  33. We can laugh and make fun all we like, but the sad fact remains that people believe this crap!

  34. I didn’t read their stuff but I have to assume they have no more than conjecture without any actual scientific measurements.
    “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.”
    Nice wording. They have a “study” which they say shows what they claim. But their study is really just speculative assertions with no real evidence or real measurements showing any of the links or indications of heat movement .
    They phrase it, “study of ocean measurements” to mendaciously imply they have scientific measurements showing their conclusions.
    They have a bad case of Climate Model Hyper-Conjecturetosis

  35. “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.”
    Not according to the latest NOAA and GISS temperature data. They now claim that there never was a pause. They say that global temperatures have risen just as fast this century as they did at the end of the previous century. So who are we to believe, UCLA and JPL, or NOAA and Karl et al?

  36. The first Law of Thermodynamics has a bit of a problem with Msrs Willis & Patzert’s scenario but lets assume it works that way. Then around the year 2000 there must have been a seachange (no pun intended) in the way heat is stored in the ocean-atmosphere system. What was it, what caused it, when precisely did it happen, what were the symptoms and who predicted it? And now we’re being told that the system will revert to its former state. So again: what will cause that, what will the symptoms be by which to recognize that it is happening, when will it be and, possibly, how long before the the system flips again?
    The answer to all these questions is obviously: nobody knows.
    So, what we have here is a hypothesized phenomenon that nobody has observed to explain another that nobody has observed either and of which it is now hypothesized that it will disappear shortly.
    One must admit, it’s a bit more involved than a discussion about how many angels there are in the fifth heaven. But only a tiny bit.

  37. This is from the Jet propulsion Lab?
    No wonder NASA can no longer perform the job of getting USA into space these days.
    Sorry state of affairs that we have to pay the Russians to ferry our Astronauts to the space station .
    The state of decay in the last 6 years has been crippling as they focus on the historical accomplishments of those who want to eliminate us..

  38. Not only was there no pause, the subsurface temperatures are rising also. The world is warming twice as fast as the models predicted!
    Quick, buy more ice cream!!

  39. “A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters ”
    So my question is, just what are these folks using to bait this heat trap in the “subsurface waters”?

  40. “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.”
    How does that work, exactly?
    Did the heat start traveling up-gradient in the first known violation of the second law of thermo-dynamics?
    Are they claiming some form of convection moved the warmest waters from the central and eastern Pacific, leaving only the cooler water behind?
    I do not understand a physical mechanism whereby warm water, leaking through Indonesia and into the Indian ocean, pulls heat (but possibly not actual water) from a cooler part of the ocean into a warmer part.
    Is there such a device conjectured in the paper, or did they just ignore the elephant in the room?

  41. The ocean needs to warm in the top 100’s of meters before the energy can be circulated to lower depths. The fact that observations have not shown this while global temperatures failed to warm, show the hypothesis being FALSE that the surface had anything to do with it.
    Then a even bigger issue therefore is the energy build up was caused be deeper ocean circulation and not surface warming during this time. They don’t have a clue how this depth of ocean many decades ago behaved and likely just an ocean cycle than in part probably adjusted to contribute to the cooling phase during the 1940’s to 1970’s and contributed towards the warming in the 1980’s to 1990’s.
    They can’t always have it one way, all mechanisms give or take. How can they ignore warming near the surface during the 1980’s and 1990’s wasn’t caused by a previous release of energy from the same region in question that has been noticed now?

    • Matt,
      The idea that heat must circulate to the deep ocean is a red herring. The temperature profile of the ocean is dictated by the pressure/density/temperature profile of water under the influence of gravity. Take a look at the temperature profile of the thermocline,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline#/media/File:THERMOCLINE.png
      This looks exactly like the temperature profile through an insulated wall, where the outside temperature is 4C and the inside temperature is 24C. While water is not a particularly good insulator, at a sufficient thickness, even iron will act as an insulator between hot and cold. It’s no coincidence that the temperature of the midpoint in the thermocline is the average temperature of the planet (15C -> 288K),
      In the tropics, there is more evaporation than precipitation, while at the poles, there is more precipitation than evaporation, This causes ocean levels at the equator to fall as they rise in the polar regions. The hydraulic action results in cold water being pushed up from below in the tropics to offset the latitudinal differences between evaporation and precipitation. The only net heat that the oceans must collect before they can be in equilibrium in response to this hydraulic action is that needed to adjust temperature at the boundaries of the thermocline. Similarly, changes in average temperature only require adjustments at these same boundaries.
      It seems like the ocean stores energy much like a capacitor, where energy is stored as a temperature difference, insulated by the thermocline, rather than a potential difference separated by a dielectric. All of the cold water below the thermocline is well below the average temperature of the planet, while equatorial waters are above and the net energy ‘stored’ by the ocean, relative to the average temperature of the planet, is much lower than conventionally considered and it is this that leads to unreasonably long estimates of the time constant in order to explain the high sensitivity which is otherwise contradicted by the data.

  42. co2isnotevil July 17, 2015 at 10:40 am
    My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. (should have been like this)
    “The ocean needs to warm in the top 100’s of meters before the energy can be transferred to lower depths.”
    My point is NOT that it can only warm lower depths with circulation. I meant the only way lower depths can warm without the volume immediately above them warming is by circulating ocean caused by salinity changes or wind/waves. If the volume of water above warms then of course it can warm the lower depths roughly like the graph below shows.
    https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/temperature_depth.jpg

    • Matt,
      If the deep waters varied in temperature as the planets temperature changes, what you said describes how those temperatures could change. My point is that the lower depths do not warm or cool even as the surface warms or cools. Relative to the whole, salinity is somewhat irrelevant as there’s not much chance of another cold, freshwater lake many times larger than the great lakes combined instantaneously draining into the ocean. The lowest depths (most of the water in the oceans) will be between 0 and 4C because cold water is denser and sinks while the thermocline insulates it from warm surface waters. This will be the case until the polar regions stop freezing which will probably not happen until the Sun enters its red giant phase. While at a sufficient thickness water can be an insulator, over short distances it’s a relatively good conductor and conduction alone is sufficient to re-organize the ocean heat across the thermocline as the planets average temperature varies. This happens fast enough and affects a small enough volume of water that ocean time constants are on the order of a year or so and not the decades to centuries required to support the hidden heat hypothesis (the slow change hypothesis).

  43. every single time a paper is discussed on here i think it would be prudent to send a link to the authors. they may not care for the discussion, but it would be nice to let them know they are held in contempt by many people that just do not buy the dogma.

  44. co2isnotevil July 17, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    I agree with one or two exceptions, but I was describing about lower depths in the thermocline related to this article, not many thousands of meters below the ocean surface where temperatures are close to 0 c. In this depth numerous areas of sinking and upwelling ocean water have been observed with deep ocean circulations. The deeper the ocean the less interaction with the surface and the longer it takes for changes to occur, especially away from these sinking and upwelling zones.
    The first exception is solar energy warming the surface if great enough, will eventually warm the deep ocean. It may take many hundreds of years, but 1% increase in solar energy would rise deep ocean temperatures by about 2.4c.
    The second exception are fossils found in layers drilled from the bottom of sea bed. These fossils are matched with what these species climate prefer to live in. Some only live in depths of the ocean and have found to prefer different temperature zones. Therefore can estimate the depths of the ocean have varied by few degrees over hundreds of millions of years.

    • Certainly the temperatures within the thermocline vary as the average surface temperature varies since the average temperature at its midpoint is the average temperature of the planet, which for all intents and purposes is the average temperature of the oceans. The deep ocean cold is exposed to contribute to the average surface temperature, but only towards the poles where there is no thermocline. Ocean levels rise and fall by as much as 100m and land masses rise and fall by kilometers as they migrate all over the globe, all of which can affect the fossil record. I suspect the thickness of the thermocline would vary as the average temperature varies, there being a lesser difference between the <=4C at the bottom and the average on top, although it's possible the water on top isn't much cooler than it is today, it's just that there's a lot less of it and a larger fraction of deep ocean cold contributing to the average.
      I don't agree that it it would take 100's of years for a 1% increase in net solar input (all else being equal) to increase the average by 2.4C, but that a 1% increase would increase the average temperature of the planet by 99% of the way there (5 time constants) within a decade at the most. A simple thought experiment is to consider how quickly the planet would become a frozen wasteland if the Sun stopped shining. Proof of concept is when the Sun sets for the polar winter. The planet only needs to get to 80K to be 99% of the way to 0K, starting from 255K (on a W/m^2 basis). Do you think it would take more than a decade to get there?

      • increase the average temperature of the planet by 99% of the way there
        should be
        increase the average temperature of the planet by less than 1C and get greater than 99% of the way there
        It seemed to think the text between the less than symbol and greater than symbol was html …

  45. Well there’s one pretty relevant point, where she says:
    “Previous attempts to explain the global surface temperature cooling trend have relied more heavily on climate model results …………………………. This study relied on observations, which are better for showing shorter-term changes over 10 to 20 years”
    How true, actual facts are definitely better than models that don’t work as a basis for a scientific study. It’s tragic, utterly tragic and rather pathetic, that this even needed saying. Of course, the inferences you draw from factual observations aren’t automatically better than inferences from models that don’t work, especially if most of your conclusions have been established in advance.
    The facts presented are definitely interesting, probably relevant to oceanography, and needed an airing. Then she ends the media release with a dead giveaway:
    “In the long term, there is robust evidence of unabated global warming,” Oh, really?
    Here’s a plausible translation: “I think I’ll be getting an even bigger grant next year if I hold my nose, close my eyes, cross my fingers, spout this nonsense and whisper “not” to myself”.
    At least, if you publicly supported Lysenko in Stalin’s USSR, you would be avoiding a one-way trip to the gulag for re-education. In the capitalist democracies of the 21st century, it’s just about getting grant money and advancing your career. Progress, perhaps?
    Wish I knew how to make those neat boxes to put quotes into……… Wish I knew how to add a graphic, or even a hyperlink. Must be getting old. Good thing too, I won’t have to watch the commoditisation (?) of science much longer. Commodification? Whatever, turning it into a commodity to be bought and sold.

  46. Sounds like the Alarmists are going to blame an El Nino on mythical CO2-generated trapped ocean heat.

  47. co2isnotevil July 17, 2015 at 5:40 pm
    i do agree the near surface would warm much quicker, but there is no way the deep ocean would warm at similar time length anywhere as close to near the surface. I do agree the planet can cool very quickly and Ice-ages have been known to occur in a little as 10 years in proxy records, so near the surface certainly can change quickly.

Comments are closed.