"Old water": The latest explanation for the Antarctic Ice Anomaly

Taylor Glacier, Antarctica, author Eli Duke, source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Glacier,_Antarctica_2.jpg

Taylor Glacier, Antarctica, author Eli Duke, source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Glacier,_Antarctica_2.jpg

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new research paper claims that the Antarctic Ocean is staying cold, because it receives large infusions of “old water”, water which has been sitting in the freezing cold ocean depths since before the start of the machine age.

Antarctic Ocean Climate Change Mystery Could Be Explained By Deep, Old Water

A new study suggests that the Antarctic Ocean has remained unaffected by climate change and global warming due to deep, old water that is continually pulled to the surface.

A new University of Washington study reveals why the Antarctic Ocean might be one of the last places to experience the effects of global warming and human-driven climate change.

Over the years, the water surrounding Antarctica has stayed roughly the same temperature even as the rest of the planet continues to warm, a fact often pointed out by climate change deniers.

Now, a new study uses observations and climate models to suggest that the reason for this inconsistency is due to the unique currents around Antarctica that continually pull deep, old water up to the surface. This ancient water hasn’t touched the Earth’s surface since before the machine age, meaning it has been hidden from human-driven climate change.

“With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” said Kyle Armour of the University of Washington and lead author of the study. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”

Read more: http://www.hngn.com/articles/199928/20160530/antarctic-ocean-climate-change-mystery-could-explained-deep-old-water.htm

The abstract of the study;

Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport

The Southern Ocean has shown little warming over recent decades, in stark contrast to the rapid warming observed in the Arctic. Along the northern flank of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, however, the upper ocean has warmed substantially. Here we present analyses of oceanographic observations and general circulation model simulations showing that these patterns—of delayed warming south of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and enhanced warming to the north—are fundamentally shaped by the Southern Ocean’s meridional overturning circulation: wind-driven upwelling of unmodified water from depth damps warming around Antarctica; greenhouse gas-induced surface heat uptake is largely balanced by anomalous northward heat transport associated with the equatorward flow of surface waters; and heat is preferentially stored where surface waters are subducted to the north. Further, these processes are primarily due to passive advection of the anomalous warming signal by climatological ocean currents; changes in ocean circulation are secondary. These findings suggest the Southern Ocean responds to greenhouse gas forcing on the centennial, or longer, timescale over which the deep ocean waters that are upwelled to the surface are warmed themselves. It is against this background of gradual warming that multidecadal Southern Ocean temperature trends must be understood.

Read more: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2731.html

The world’s oceans contain enough cold water to quench any imaginable anthropogenic global warming for hundreds, more likely thousands of years. If that deep water is upwelling around Antarctica, keeping the Southern Ocean cold, it is difficult to see how significant global warming can occur, or significant Antarctic contribution to sea level rise can occur, until that reservoir of freezing cold deep ocean water is finally depleted.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

..Wow, they get more and more desperate everyday !! LOL

Bryan A

I thought that the Antarctic was Melting, Losing Ice Mass, and that it was this thinning of the ice that was allowing for greater intrusion of Cold Fresh Water into the Southern Ocean that was creating the greater Ice Extents that have been recorded recently. Now it seems that it is rather (C)old Water from the ocean depths (That is supposed to be hiding the warmth ALA Kevin Trenberth) is upwelling and negating the effects of Warming in the southern region???
Still waiting for the Straight Story
NObama 16


Does this mean that the models (a) weren’t quite right (gasp!), (b) as right as they have always been, or (c) righter than ever, but in a different way?
I’m pretty sure we’re still doomed, regardless.

My college freshman class are laughing at this article. The one girl said that it reminded her of the glacier ice scene in the “Water Boy” movie by Adam Sandler. Too Funny!!!

Reality Observer

Yep. Now it’s the cold that has been hiding in the oceans.

The other Phil

That’s really funny.

That was my first thought. First it was the heat hiding in the deep oceans and now it is the cold! Do they listen to themselves?

Not cold– Dark Heat….

Isn’t it the change of state energy requirements that makes ice so good at “storing cold?” This must be SUPER WATER. LMMFAO!

The depicted Taylor glacier belongs to the area: “The Dry Valleys, McMurdo”. And why are the Valleys dry, and why are the glaciers melting instead of building up frontal moraines. I’m sure most People don’t know this, and the climate scientists don’t like this. It has to do With the sub-surface geology of the dry Valleys.
If you sprinkle salt on ice and snow – what happens? It melts. Well, beneath the Taylor glacier there is salt in the soil and the glacier melts from below and upwards! Scientists have been wondering for centuries, why the Dry Valleys are devoid of fresh snow and ice. It’s a trick of Nature again. It has to do With physics and chemistry, as always…

You’re neglecting katabatic winds, it seems.

Who in G’s Name would publish this trash. OMG Please make these morons stop. The desperation is truly building and when it crashes I hope EVERYONE is watching!

Pablo an ex Pat

I can also think of a really simple explanation as to why the waters around Antarctica aren’t warming as predicted. The theory that CO2 drives global temperature is wrong. Can I have my grant check now please ?

Eric H

Sorry but I thought all of the extra heat that the climatists predicted would be in the ocean, is supposed to be “hiding” in the deep ocean (via Trenberth). So if all of the missing heat is in the deep ocean, how can deep old water being keeping the Antarctic cold? Shouldn’t it be heating it up?
It would be nice if they could keep their theories straight….

Eric H

BTW I have started calling them “climatists” because they certainly are not “scientists”…

Rob Morrow

+1 Eric
Great term, “climatists”. I’m going to use it too.


the extra heat is UNDER the cold water pushing it up of course!

Walt The Physicist

Perhaps the climatists’ theory is that the heat hides into the ocean carried down by the warm water that goes down into the ocean driven by the weatherological currents that oppose Archimedes (“natural”) convection. In the meantime the climatological upwelling currents bring cold, -“old”, -ld, -d water to the surface (climatists here stutter a lot since the “old” water is really cold). And that is explanation for the hidden heat, issue is closed, finem scientia…

G. Karst

A climatist is created, when scientist cannot supress the ego enough, to utter the words “I was wrong”. It is a condition that has become absolute in climatology. GK

Tom Judd


Eric H
This is the ‘missing cold’
… try to keep up

David Ball

Seems like a major malaise going on in this article.

They are neither to me, “climatists” appears to give some sort of title with implied knowledge, a group of “scientists” ( 90 of them ) just send a letter to the Minister of the Environment in BC Canada. In it they claim further exploration and use of NG will increase GHG’s by 22 % over the next what ever years. They are all “professors” at UBC but none of them actually tell us what their real background is, but a little research shows the usual list of shrinks , prof’s of English, biologists and so on.
What they claim is that BC cannot because of this reach the targets set in Paris last year. They do not mention that those targets were set by themselves and their fellow “Professors” .

Bryan A

Very similar to the Scientific Findings De-Jour that get peer reviewed and published one day to solve a mystery (vis-a-vis missing Heat in hiding in the lower oceans and that is why there is no real hiatus on global temperature increases) then others are peer reviewed (by the same people??) and published the next day (week, Month, Year in the same Scientific Magazines) that say (C)old water upwelling from the ocean depths is causing the observed southern ocean cooling in Antarctica, practically refuting the first paper yet, at some point in time, it’s very likely that either or both papers will be cited in future research and perhaps in the same research as consensus papers.

Climatists of Gang-Green. That has a certain ring to it. Sounds like a book title, a fantasy tale where Climatists of Gang-Green are the bully-boys of the rainforest, out there swinging in the trees and stealing everyone’s bananas.
Sorry, I get carried away sometimes…


I think this is deeper deep water. There are deeper patches of water all the way down.

bill johnston

“keep their theories straight”?? Naw, that would take all the fun out of it.

Gang-Green? Who came up with that? It’s brilliant!

Ian Macdonald



But Ian, think of the children. If Antarctica begins to warm in only 300 years or so …

john harmsworth

Think of the penguins! Think 0f the penguins children!


Bad Pablo!
No Grant for You.
Come back 6 months.


Don’t be silly.
The CAGW theory is the ONLY correct theory.
Since, for it to be a correct theory, we must accept that all other theories are wrong.
And that the data is wrong.
Or maybe we’ve been studying the wrong planet.
Occam’s razor – it’s the best a man can get.
Or was that the other brand?


What the hell are ‘climatological ocean currents’?


Climatological ocean currents go up, Weatherological ocean currents go down. Just like temperature.
Glad I could help.


Thanks for that. It’s much clearer to me now


Is that sort of like ‘up’ and ‘down’ on a map with reference to the north arrow?


It depends on how you look at it.

Pamela Gray

TonyL, OMG that was funny!


Climatological ocean currents are a nice fat funding cheque.


You prefer the term climatillogical ocean currents?


Climatillogical ocean currents are probably the result of Climatastrology:

Harry Passfield

‘Climatological ocean currents’ are caused by Climate Change. When they occur they cause Global Warming. Do keep up. /s


That depends. Are they AC or DC?


Oh, their probably ‘non-binary’ .

Tom in Florida

They could be transC


Looks like another excuse for the Pause. A bit late, but that’s OK, we will count it.
Excuse #37
I thought that deep ocean overturning taking hundreds of years was very well known. Maybe this is new because they used a model?


In order to make an excuse for the pause, they have to acknowledge that there is a pause.


Ah, you are correct. Excuse # withdrawn.

george e. smith

Well the whole Atlantic and Pacific Oceans go sloshing back and forth twice a day, between the Antarctic Peninsula and the tip of South America, so it gets pretty rough down there and the waters are well mixed.
Southern Winters are much colder than Northern Winters, because the earth spends a longer time at a greater distance from the sun during Antarctic winters.
Conversely, the earth spends a shorter time closer to the sun during the Antarctic Summers, than it does during the Northern Summers.


not to mention that every 18 years or so the moon cycles between 18.5 degrees and 28.5 degrees declination, which definitely will affect the mixing rate of the oceans, and will likely give rise to warming/cooling oscillations north and south. bipolar see-saw?


But you have to give them some credit. They keep trying!

Hank Hancock

Doesn’t this finding fly in the face of earlier assertions that the reason why we’re not experiencing as much warming as the models predicted is because the extra heat was hiding in the deep?


The extra heat must have found a good place to hide in the deep oceans because even these researchers can’t find it.


Reality changes daily depending on the widely-publicized press releases’ contents. It’s like that Twilight Zone episode with the kid who could manifest stuff with just his mind.

Oh no, the new Warm water going into the deep is what’s pushing the old cold water out!

How sick can things be before even the media is able to smell the stench?


They smell it now. It’s just that they choose to ignore it.


Heck, they can’t smell the gangrenous stench of their own corruption. Why should we expect them to sniff out corruption elsewhere?


They have learned to love that stench, like some delicacies have a stench, and assume it goes with global warming.

george e. smith

There’s that evil “could” word again.
And models all the way down.
Hey Washington University, I have a much simpler explanation than yours, and the thing is that I can PROVE mine. And it is not a computer model, but actual factual real world Antarctic Ocean experimental measurements.
The real reason that The Antarctic Ocean has not warmed up, is because Antarctica is surrounded by freezing cold water. We know it is freezing cold, because we have measured the water Temperature many times and it is freezing cold.
That’s why it is cold in the Antarctic; very low water Temperature.
And it stays cold because it doesn’t get much sunshine down there.
“Old water” my a*** !!


Hey, that dihydrogen oxide is billions of years old. Those hydrogen atoms have mostly been around since the Big Bang. See, it is real, real, real old. I admit the oxygen needed a supernova or two. Now that is warming.


So modern wager must have more of that supernova oxygen in it. No wonder it’s hotter than the old water!

If it’s not man-made, it’s not global warming.

FJ Shepherd

FFS. I have heard them reference “old ice” versus “new ice” in order to explain why things are not happening the way they should be according to the AGW hypothesis. So now it is “old water?” Does this mean that “new water” is warmer? LOL! Well, I guess even idiots can be creative.


Well, it must be that old water is heavier than new water. That’s why it stays down there keeping the oceans from warming up.

John M. Ware

I thought “heavy water” was radioactive or had an extra electron or something; would that affect its temperature?

Brian H

Extra neutron. Science!

Steve Fraser

The study does not use the ter, only the article.


How much did this nonsense cost the tax payer??

“The dog–I mean the deep ocean–ate my homework–global warming” 🙂

john harmsworth

I gotta write that one down!

more unsettled science?

Dodgy Geezer

…Antarctic Ocean Climate Change Mystery Could Be Explained By Deep, Old Water…
It could also be explained by corruption and lying on the part of Climate Scientists…


Climate Scientist or Climate Fictionist

What’s wrong with the old favourite, “climate scientologist”?


Could be this, may be that, might be this other thing. Meh, whatever. Good enough for government work government-funded climate speculation work and PR messaging.


Now this is an interesting 180-degree turn. Hitherto it has been generally accepted that the very cold bottom water in the Oceans is created around Antarctica by the very cold catabatic winds coming off the continent, sinks because of its high density and spreads northwards along the bottom. Google “Antarctic Bottom Water” or “AABW”.
Now apparently it’s suddenly the other way around. This cold water (created where, by the way, in the tropics?) comes to the surface around Antarctica instead.

Mark - Helsinki

Yes they are actually suggesting very cold water sits atop relatively warm water as the cold water passes the warm water on it’s way to the surface.
More lost in a concept cack.
The only thing we know for certain is climate science now accounts for 5.51% of all models in science now 😀

Mark - Helsinki



ditto 55.1% – it’s about 4% of total funding.


Why not 97%?

Mickey Reno

I thought it had bee fairly well established that ultra cold very dense (highly saline) water was SINKING in a more-or-less steady way, thereby pushing deep cold water currents outward and Northward, away from the Antarctic continent, causing major up-welling on the Western coast of South America? And now I see that tty has already posted a similar question.

Mickey Reno

Oh, and the mandatory feminine cryosphere narrative: Antactica is a frigid bitch.

Don’t confuse them with facts, they don’t like it. It upsets them. They’ll need cookies and blankets and a safe space.


“With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” said Kyle Armour of the University of Washington and lead author of the study. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”
Perhaps the something else that is going on is that the hypothesis is wrong.

george e. smith

No Kyle, I would NOT expect anything of the kind.
With rising CO2 I would expect there to be more clouds, which block more sunlight and cool the earth, by lowering the total solar energy that reaches the earth’s surface.
But I do agree with your principal conclusion.
It IS for ” really simple reasons .” Too simple to even bother modeling; and yes it has even been MEASURED.
Is “measurement” something that they teach at the University of Washington ??


Is there a separate “climate science” curriculum in today’s universities? If so, I wonder if a mandatory course is “Coming up with bullshit excuses for natural events that refute the climate change meme.”

Myron Mesecke

But I thought all the heat was going into the deep ocean so how is there any cold in the deep ocean?
And Antarctic ice is magical now? Able to be less affected by CO2 than Arctic ice?
These people are so caught up in their delusions they have lost any semblance of common sense.


It’s all those penguins they protect it against the heat by blocking the sun’s rays with their bodies 🙂 and their happy feet too

Myron, if you were a real scientist you understand these things.
The deep water is warmer, but due to quantum uncertainty, it turns cold as soon as it’s measured.

Bruce Cobb

The quest for an excuse as to why gaia isn’t following the CAGW script continues. You can smell the desperation and fear of these “researchers”. The end of the CAGW gravy train is nigh.


Since the rest of the ocean has only warmed by about 0.001C, how can you tell the difference?


Yeah, they act like the North Pole has warmed up just like the CAGW theory predicted. It’s just that presky South Pole that is not cooperating, but now we know why.
Meanwhile the tempertures are dropping. I guess we’ll have a new measurement tomorrow.

john harmsworth

Which of course is an unmeasurable amount


AH makes sense…
The deep cold water is coming up….and behind it it’s sucking the hot water back down…
I think we found the global warming that’s been hiding in the deep oceans
….my headache just came back

John B

The global warming ‘science’ is something of a magic act, with a top hat containing an infinite number of hidden white rabbits to be pulled out as the occasion warrants to amaze and distract, and a magic wand to change data before our very eyes.

“We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.”



FJ Shepherd

Excellent link to a fairly recent scientific paper, Werner. So higher concentrations of CO2 in central Antarctica actually cools the atmosphere. I think the climate alarmists should simply ignore Antarctica because all of their nattering on about why it is becoming colder there versus warmer is drawing attention to the fact that it really IS becoming colder there. This defeats their purpose.


That seems physically reasonable. Above the tropopause where radiative transport dominates over convection and temperature increases with altitude greenhouse gases have a cooling effect. And in Central Antarctica there really isn’t any troposphere or tropopause, at least in winter, so yes more greenhouse gases would presumably cause cooling there.


Finally, the science is settled. All we needed after all was simple reasons and heroes.

Mark - Helsinki

Now any time the Antarctic is brought up, they have an obfuscation to apply, “it’s the last place to show global warming you denier”
Yawnn.. nothing but creating obfuscation.
Models are not science.


““it’s the last place to show global warming you denier””
That’s because of “polar amplification” 😉


Anybody want to have some fun?
I followed the link back. It appears to be a trendy, current events, “news magazine” type of web site with a very “millennial” type of vibe. Chances are that the editor, or at least the copy writer is fully absorbed into the whole millennial ethos, so prevalent on college campuses these days. That includes charges of racism, sexism, white privilege, and calls for safe spaces, perpetually offended, and all the rest. And of course, censoring speech they do not like.
They used the term “den*er”, in the piece, and we can’t even use that word here without getting sent to the doghouse.
How about some of us surf over there and complain about the use of “den*er”. Say it is racist, techno-privilege, offensive, and makes us feel threatened. Demand an apology issued here at WUWT. Then we can make them grovel for forgiveness.
That would be one news outlet that never uses that term again.

Whoops! This, cough cough, research is another one of those confirmation bias hunting expeditions.
State a desired finding.
Claim to use observations.
• ‘Find’ an upwelling current.
• Claim to find where the displaced surface current flows.
• Claim that the surface water ‘warmed’ while on the surface near Antarctica.
• Claim that the surface water ‘carried away the Antarctica CO2 warmed water’
• Claim that the warmed surface water then are subducted on their way north… (another tropical hot spot?)
Observations show cooling waters near Antarctica, so these researcher yahoos turn to models and CMIP5 to ‘show’ warming near Antarctica.
To no one’s surprise, they then use NOAA’s fabulous nebulous zeta-joules to highlight the alleged warming.
What these yahoos fail to explain is how this upwelling ancient current flows unfrozen to the surface, swirls around in sub-zero temperatures; then flows northward warmer?
These University of Washington yahoos are playing a rigged shell game proving their warming water is imaginary modeling.


“What these yahoos fail to explain is how this upwelling ancient current flows unfrozen to the surface,”
Well it would certainly be a turn up for the book if the water froze below the surface and bobbed up as an iceberg. Physically impossible my friend.
“…. swirls around in sub-zero temperatures; then flows northward warmer?”
The average freezing point of Antarctic ocean waters is ~ -1.8C.
Considering that the stated reason for the up-welling is an increase of surface winds (created by the increased deltaT between the SH temperate zone and Antarctica) then increased turbulent mixing would (at some point going away from the continent) prevent freezing …. and so the waters start their journey north.

Arguing false straw men Toneb?
I state unfrozen, you state frozen.
And you make fun of the ‘frozen’ concept you just stated.
Then you write about the ‘average freezing point of Antarctic waters is’, but I wrote about the sub-zero temperatures.
Toneb also points out that the reason for the up-welling is an “increase of surface winds” along with increased turbulent mixing, somewhere to prevent freezing.
Wouldn’t the upwelled water being CO2 warmed prevent freezing? Or do their use of the term ‘delayed’ imply the warming happens later?
Now about that upwelling in a circumpolar current being caused by winds? How does that work?
Toneb; you’ve stepped in a hole of your own digging.
Without providing any evidence that the waters surrounding Antarctica, upwelled or not, are made warmer by CO2 before they travel north?
Nor did you provide any rationale for the alleged warming, instead you argued against your own straw men writing.
At least the researchers above included a “Southern Ocean’s meridional overturning circulation” as part of their circumpolar wind beliefs.
Though just how the researchers northward flow of water is:

“…anomalous northward heat transport associated with the equatorward flow of surface waters; and heat is preferentially stored where surface waters are subducted to the north…”

Then they claim that the anomalous process is centennial; anomalous centennial process? Makes one wonder just what is normal in the climate world.
Normal certainly can not be storing warm water preferentially subducted to depth…
Confirmation bias!


“Well it would certainly be a turn up for the book if the water froze below the surface and bobbed up as an iceberg. Physically impossible my friend.”

Physically impossible?
Some strange things happen in Antarctica. I´ve personally seen snow fall on the sea-surface and cover it without melting since the temperature of the water is below zero (this only works in an absolute dead calm, which is not common in Antarctica).


“Arguing false straw men Toneb?
I state unfrozen, you state frozen.
And you make fun of the ‘frozen’ concept you just stated.”
Yes, because….
You said “What these yahoos fail to explain is how this up-welling ancient current flows unfrozen to the surface”.
Sorry, that implies that sub-zero water should have “frozen”.
“Then you write about the ‘average freezing point of Antarctic waters is’, but I wrote about the sub-zero temperatures.”
Correct. So?
“Wouldn’t the up-welled water being CO2 warmed prevent freezing? Or do their use of the term ‘delayed’ imply the warming happens later?
Now about that up-welling in a circumpolar current being caused by winds? How does that work?”
No, it means that the extra warming incurred by surface waters due AGW is removed becasue the waters are – and replaced by cooler waters from below.
See my other posts re up-welling. But same thing happens in the E Equ Pac during a La Nina.
“Toneb; you’ve stepped in a hole of your own digging.
Without providing any evidence that the waters surrounding Antarctica, upwelled or not, are made warmer by CO2 before they travel north?
Nor did you provide any rationale for the alleged warming, instead you argued against your own straw men writing.”
No “hole” my friend.
I do not need to provide “evidence”. My post was countering yours and the paper (I assume – pay-walled) provides evidence in that regard.
The paper is regarding increased up-welling of cold bottom waters due to increased wind-stress of surface waters, overcoming warming that *would have* taken place were surface waters to have remained. That is all.
“Then they claim that the anomalous process is centennial; anomalous centennial process? Makes one wonder just what is normal in the climate world.
Normal certainly can not be storing warm water preferentially subducted to depth…
Confirmation bias!”
I read that comment to mean that the process has taken ~100yrs in order for it to kick-in. You know?
Like, things don’t happen instantaneously.
And no I would suggest the “bias” lies elsewhere.


I guess the paper is saying, “What happens in Antarctica, stays in Antarctica”…




But the waters around Antarctica are in fact warming, Here is 0-700 m temps south of 60S:
Is the heat welling up from below, slightly warmer slightly saltier water..?


Well yeah….last year it was the warm water melting the ice
Now this year it’s the cold water freezing it

It’s not the Southern Ocean! It says 60N!


I notice the sudden temp rise coincides when ARGO data went online in 2003.
Perhaps that’s the reason. Prior to ARGO, ocean area temperature coverwge was spotty.
It would also like to know how much (KARL2105) raw data adjustments have had on ocean temp records.

Richard G

It would be interesting to know if those numbers are an artifact of ARGO coming online or if they have been Karlized. Not sure if anyone saved the ARGO data for that area before Karl 2015.


2 points:
1. Gotta love data wiggles that show 2 to 6 one-hundredths of a degree changes in temp. Even changes +/- a whole one tenth of a degree are hilarious when one considers the accuracy implied by that graph when no error bars are shown.
2. I would strongly suspect that a systematic measuring process changed in about 2003-2004 to cause the discontinuity and the higher amplitude swings post 2004. And the name of that systematic change in measuring methodology would be called Argo.
So O R, before you get too excited about that graph you posted, the data post-2003 cannot be stitched to the post 2004, to find some trend across the interval. Mann did that bit of dishonesty on another graph.


Errata: pre-2003.

O R, you seriously cannot call changes in hundredths of a degree “warming”!!! Get a life, mate.

FJ Shepherd

Oh, but those measurements must be for “new water” only.

Argo data 0 – 2000m do not seem to show much warming in any of the polar oceans:


Do you happen to know the extent of KARL2015 “adjustments” have had on ARGO final-temp data (0~2000 meters)?

Richard M

Looks like all the warming is across the tropics over the past 2 years of El Nino conditions.


Do the probes actually measure down to a hundredth of a degree?
If not, then your chart is garbage.

How about this:comment image?w=470&h=262

john harmsworth

First: This is surface down to over 2 km
Second: This is millions of sq. km all the way around the globe
Third: This is a range of .1 degree C
Lastly, and forever more: This is completely meaningless measurement


Does that graph contain the motivated ARGO adjustments of Josh Willis?
He who banished the mysterious post millennial cooling observations, with this brilliant explanation:
“First, 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. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”


There were basically NO temperature readings taken down there before 2003.
NOAA has used a “model” to invent these numbers.comment image

There is something wrong with this graph! The Southern Ocean is cooling! Sixty degrees NORTH*! That would be Siberia!
* The graph lists 60N, which is Sixty North.

I was responding to the graph by O R above!


The maps of world thermohaline circulation show a underwater current coming south off the east coast of South America and joining the thermohaline current that circles Antarctica.

William Astley

The discrete thermal haline urban legend was started by Wally Broeker. Wally invented the concept of a discrete deep water conveyor to try to explain the polar see-saw which is the name given for the fact that the Antarctic ice sheet warms slightly when the Greenland ice sheet cools and vice versa.
The idiots in pure science ignore the piles and piles of observations that disprove their pet theories. The planet warms and cools cyclically. Internal forcing functions are chaotic and affect only one hemisphere.
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
The analysis goes in circles as there are piles and piles of urban legends and zombie theories that have been thrown at the problem what causes cyclic warming and cooling and sometimes abrupt cooling of the earth.
Solar cycle changes are the cause of all of the cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. The planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes (the amplifying urban legend has also started by Wally Broeker to try to explain cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record.) The explanation for cyclic abrupt climate change is the sun is different than the standard model and changes in a manner to cause the cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record.
First the following is the observation that supports the assertion that there is no discrete deep water thermal haline conveyor system to interrupt.

Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
“Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”
The question is how do these climate change signals get spread further south? Oceanographers long thought all this Labrador seawater moved south along what is called the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), which hugs the eastern North American continental shelf all the way to near Florida and then continues further south.
But studies in the 1990s using submersible floats that followed underwater currents “showed little evidence of southbound export of Labrador sea water within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC),” said the new Nature report.
Scientists challenged those earlier studies, however, in part because the floats had to return to the surface to report their positions and observations to satellite receivers. That meant the floats’ data could have been “biased by upper ocean currents when they periodically ascended,” the report added.
To address those criticisms, Lozier and Bower launched 76 special Range and Fixing of Sound floats into the current south of the Labrador Sea between 2003 and 2006. Those “RAFOS” floats could stay submerged at 700 or 1,500 meters depth and still communicate their data for a range of about 1,000 kilometers using a network of special low frequency and amplitude seismic signals.
But only 8 percent of the RAFOS floats’ followed the conveyor belt of the Deep Western Boundary Current, according to the Nature report. About 75 percent of them “escaped” that coast-hugging deep underwater pathway and instead drifted into the open ocean by the time they rounded the southern tail of the Grand Banks.
Eight percent “is a remarkably low number in light of the expectation that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for Labrador Sea Water,” the researchers wrote.
Studies led by Lozier and other researchers had previously suggested cold northern waters might follow such “interior pathways” rather than the conveyor belt in route to subtropical regions of the North Atlantic. But “these float tracks offer the first evidence of the dominance of this pathway compared to the DWBC.”

Polar See-saw.
As Svensmark notes (see Svensmark’s attached paper that discusses the polar see-saw) there is no delay in the cyclic Antarctic ice sheet slight cooling and warming which correlates in time but is out of phase with the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling cycle warming of the Greenland ice sheet in the Northern hemisphere. The fact that there is no delay in the polar see-saw warming and cooling rules out ocean currents as the cause as there is a theoretical 1000 year plus delay in the ocean current change in the North hemisphere to cause a change in the southern hemisphere if there was a discrete deep water conveyor which there is not.
It is important to note the planet cyclically warms and cools (both hemispheres in sync except the Antarctic ice sheet is out of sync and cools and warms slightly). This paper notes that the Southern hemisphere cools and warms with the same periodicity as in the Northern hemisphere.

Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
What we are currently experiencing is the end of a Dansgaard-Oeschger warming cycle. The D-O warming and cooling is caused by solar cycle modulation of high latitude cloud cover.
As the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is higher than cloud cover, a decrease in cloud cover over the Antarctic ice sheet
The cooling of the Antarctic ocean is due to cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet.
P.S. Observations continue to support the assertion the solar cycle has been interrupted and we are going to experience a Heinrich event.

The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.


Thanks for that. Not just about the currents. polar see-saw; Clouds with a different effect depending on the albedo of what is beneath
I am going to read it a second time.


Old water, you have to be joking. The Surface of water does NOT obey the laws of thermodynamics because god got there first with surface tension.
The SURFACE of water will only allow radiated energy through its surface physical heat is blocked.
As the sun’s Radiated energy reaches the planet it first passes through the atmosphere heating the gases including co2.That heat is blocked only the radiated energy is allowed to pass and you can’t add to it because god got there first with Surface tension. There is NO such thing as AGW


When your practicing ‘heads you lose tails I win ‘ “science” then of course you can square the circle .
‘a fact often pointed out by climate change deniers.’ has no relationship at all to any science , it just throwing around a silly insult .


Well, it is after all, important to reinforce who the “enemy” is and who the “bad people” are so that the newly-enraged crowd knows who to attack for destroying the planet. Oh is it done pour encourager les autres?


It’ heavy, and it’s old, cos it’s dinosaur piss!

Yesterday a report on Yahoo had the temperature in Antarctica at -93 for some British Station. Don’t know if that included wind chill but it is very hard to conjure up “ice loss” at those kind of temperatures.

john harmsworth

I wonder what it was before they fiddled it warmer

I’m no scientist or anything but I would think that all the water in the ocean is the exact same age.

Not all of it, no.


Right. Most water is ancient. New water is created when hydrocarbons burn. It takes work to destroy water.

Steve Reddish

Photosynthesis is a water destroying mechanism at work in the oceans.

Steve Reddish

And those burning hydrocarbons were produced in the first place by photosynthesis.

South River Independent

But can you pick out the one new water molecule in a line up of old water molecules?

Steve Fraser

The comment about the ‘old water’ is in the article, but not in the paper.

Rob Dawg

On a hot day I like a nice cold beer. Sure enough not long after I produce new water. Much warmer just like their theory predicts. The difference of course is that my new water is worth more than their theory.


+10 🙂


bit chilly

in a list of replies that has had me rofl ,that one takes the biscuit rob 🙂

Colder, saltier water floats to the top. Who knew?

Richard M

This is another example of the denial rampant among climate pseudo-scientists. There is already an easy explanation for the differences seen at the poles. The AMO drives changes in the ice in the Arctic.
As the AMO index warms, the water melts ice which allows energy to be released into the atmosphere from the water. This warms the air but eventually cools the water sufficiently that ice reforms and starts to insulate the water. The full cycle takes 60-70 years.
But hey, once the Arctic warming is shown to be natural the entire claim of dangerous warming is toast. They now have shown the Antarctic is not going to warm and to admit much if not all of the Arctic warming is natural would end the silly field of climastrology.

Most of the water in the lower portions of oceans is the old water, after all the Earth is an old planet, but by no means the oldest. According to astronomers in Lund, there is a lot to indicate that Planet 9 was captured by the young sun and has been a part of our solar system completely undetected ever since, there should be some even older water in form of a veeeeerrryyy old ice.


I thought it was Plan 9 that came from outer space?

South River Independent

No, Revolution 9 by the Beatles.

Steve Reddish

So…he doesn’t see any way a planet could form at such a great distance from our star, therefore it must have formed at the outer edge of some other star system? How does that work?

In approximately six billion years, our galaxy will start to physically collide with the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) with gravitational warping beginning at four billion years.
One model I watched, estimated that from initial gravitational warping the whole collision will last for approximately three billion years.
There is a strong possibility that Andromeda’s satellite companion galaxy (M33) will join in the fun.
I’m sure there will be plenty of planetoids wandering in search of a solar system then.
That’s all it takes to free up planets is a gravitational source strong enough to kick one free. There are plenty of binary and triple star solar systems out there that kicked out planetoids in the wrong positions early on.

We better be kicked free of the sun … It will expand into a red giant and kill everyone on the planet if not transferred to (1) another solar system by gravity loops and kicks or (2) another planet (by technology and energy).


Let me put that on my calendar.

Aye RACookPE1978!
We need strip the Earth of everything usable, strip the Asteroid belt of anything that we’d need, herd all of the biological life we like into stock transports, then find a nice cozy spot to watch the galaxies merge.
When they’re mostly finished, we can look for a fresh new solar system, move an ideal planet into position, load it up with all of the goodies and move in. After we send all of the interior designers, unreformed climate team descendants and beauticians back to the old ‘newly terra-fried’ Earth.
i.e. unless mankind and critters have managed to evolve into beings of pure energy by then.
Four billion years to evolve before the merger.
Three billion years to evolve during the merger.
Old Sol will have expanded and either consumed the Earth or barbecued it thoroughly.

British Astronomer Royal Lord Rees has gone BB nuts.

Smart Rock

Hello Vukcevic, good to see you again, always with thought-provoking ideas (seriously)
You said:

According to astronomers in Lund

Which planet is Lund again?

does this mean we can’t hide heat in the ocean depths anymore?

Here is a transect from Antarctica to Australia sampling CFCs. Rather than cold water rising up to nefariously hide our preconceived idea of warming, that cooling around Antarctica is creating more cold water which is sinking, dragging with it absorbed CFS ( and CO2 ) to the depths:


As I get older, I find that I get cold more easily.
Perhaps that’s what’s wrong with the water.

tom s


What, AGAIN?


My theory is that Trenberth’s “hidden” AGW heat is actually hiding much deeper… in the earth’s core! Our reckless production of CO2 is actually causing the core to melt from it’s pre-industrial solid state.

Did they forget that cold water is denser and sinks? Sure displacement by the wind can upwell some old cold water, but the wind isn’t always present, isn’t always strong enough to cause this upwelling and the S pole is a powerful source of new cold water to replace anything that upwelled to the surface. It will not take mere centuries to exhaust the cold (old or new) water, but will take until the Sun reaches its red giant phase and consumes the Earth..
This is a classic case of acknowledging only the small slice of reality that can be spun to support a cause while ignoring anything else. This is how politics works and this is how Nature reports.


My thoughts exactly. Water i(frsh or salt) s at its densest at around 4 degress C. This report suggests that denser fluids rise. On this basis the Laws of Thermodynamics and Archimedean principles are poor science and the proponents of AGW global change give us a new “science” where conjecture overrules observation and determinisatic theory.

No, saltwater has it’s maximum density at its melting/freezing point, the 4ºC maximum density only applies to freshwater.

john harmsworth

Density depends on salinity as well as temperature. Also, much of this water is colder than 4C. Throw in surface temperature interactions and evaporation along with wind and subsurface currents and it’s obviously too complcated for your (below) average climate scientist.

Tom Judd

Seriously. This time they’ve really got a handle on something. And, despite all the past pronouncements that predicted catastrophes that just didn’t occur, this time it’s true. We’re doomed. Once that “old water” applies for Social Security benefits it’ll bankrupt the system. The economies will collapse.

I thought of Old Water crawling out of the ocean and eating people like in the old-fashioned monster movies. Never thought of it lining up at the Social Security Office – somehow that’s much scarier.

If this has continued thousand years it can not be explanation resent cooling South waters, just eplanation of cold South as general.
But there is some faint claims that winds of the area are now more powerfull than before. Make sense if tropic is a bit warmer then there is larger thermal gratient = more energy to use.
So “missing heat” is on a way to the North Pole not to the bottom of southern seas.
And you may ask if this is negative feedback because colder sea surface means lager sea ice.
A funny thing is that the reality is in this case quite opposite to climate sciences claims about missing heat.

Bob Quartero

All deep water is cold. Around 4 degrees C. Simply because of the high pressures at that depth. Water has its highest density at 4C. Nothing to do with Old or New water.

john harmsworth

As salt water freezes the water separates from the salt so the remaining water becomes more saline. This occurs at less than 0C. The resultant cold, extra saline water sinks through the surrounding water in columns much like cold air in thunderstorms. When Arctic or Antarctic ice forms, it creates very cold, extra saline water in proportionate amounts that sinks until it either hits bottom, finds fresher water to mix with or else finds a source of heat to warm up.
[Only in very still, undisturbed water uniform in temperature and salinity vertically from top to bottom. Add waves, under-ice currents, surface winds and mixing …It gets messy. Like thinking super-cooled liquids that freeze instantly are a common occurrence. They “can” happen, but it takes very, very unusual circumstances. .mod]

Jeff L

“With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,”
Classic ! The author doesn’t consider even for one nanosecond that the CAGW hypothesis might be wrong & the “something else that is going on ” is that CACW isn’t what’s going on.


Many years ago on WUWT there was a beautiful essay, I think written by Willis Eschenbach, about the incredible complexity of the climate and the hubris of scientists who believe they captured its essence in a rather simplistic set of models.
Every discovery of a new factor interacting with the climate validates that essay. Wouldn’t it be nice if the climate modelers come to accept that the system is really really complicated.


“and heat is preferentially stored where surface waters are subducted to the north.”
The heat “prefers” to go north? Who knew?

Bruce Cobb

Well of course. It goes north to cool off. No one likes being hot.


that’s cause heat rises

Warm water rises to the top of the earth and cold water sinks to the bottom. Easy but /sarc off in case anyone thinks I’m really stupid.


two great minds….look up

David Smith

Or is that “look down”?
Depends which way your holding the map, I suppose.

Not in climate science, no. In climate science, warm water can hide inside cold water.