Claim: Oceans are warming rapidly, study says

From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and the “worse than we thought” mind of climate activist John Abraham comes this study, that frankly, isn’t very believable, especially when you invoke the word “consensus” as part of your proof.

This image shows the ocean warming rate (Ocean Heat Content 0-2000m trend) from 1960 to 2016 in unit of W/m2, calculated by IAP Gridded Data. CREDIT CHENG Lijing

Oceans are warming rapidly, study says

More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. Therefore, OHC is one of the most important indicators of global warming. During the past 30 years, many independent groups worked to estimate historical OHC changes. However, large uncertainty has been found among the published global OHC time series. For example, during the current surge of research on the so-called “hiatus” or “slowdown”, different scientific studies draw quite different conclusions on the key scientific question such as “Where is the heat redistributed in the ocean?” This motivates us to give a detailed analysis about global and basin OHC changes based on multiple ocean datasets.

A just released study, led by Ph. D student WANG Gong-jie from National University of Defence Technology, cooperating with Professor LI Chong-yin and Dr. CHENG Li-jing from Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP)/ Chinese Academy of Sciences, Professor John P. ABRAHAM from University of St. Thomas (USA), comprehensively examined the OHC change on decadal and multi-decadal scales and at different ocean basins. Through three different objectively analyzed ocean datasets (Ishii from Japan, EN4 from Met. Office and IAP), they found that the oceans are robustly warming, regardless of which data was used. In addition, the heat among global oceans experienced a significant redistribution in the past several decades.

During 1998-2012, which was famous for global warming slowdown period, all of these basins had been accumulating heat, and there was no clear indication of which ocean basin dominates the global OHC change. In other words, below 100-m depth in the Atlantic and Southern Ocean, and between 100-300m depth in the Pacific and Indian Ocean, there was statistically significant warming and they all contributed to global ocean warming. The discrepancy results from previous studies are due to the difference of depth ranges used in calculating OHC as well as the uncertainty in subsurface temperature datasets.

Why are there substantial differences among different datasets? This study shows that Ishii analysis underestimates the heating rate in the southern hemisphere in the past century. And EN4 analysis cannot correctly reconstruct the sea surface temperature (SST) during the past 30 years and underestimates the warming rate by ~90% compared with an independent SST datasets such as ERSST and OISST. This indicates the Ishii and EN4 analyses may underestimate the ocean warming rate.

“In plain English, it will be important that we keep high-quality temperature sensors positioned throughout the oceans so in the future we will be able to predict where our climate is headed,” explains co-author ABRAHAM. “We say in science that a measurement not made is a measurement lost forever. And there are no more important measurements than of heating of the oceans.”


The press release:

The paper:

Consensuses and discrepancies of basin-scale ocean heat content changes in different ocean analyses

Inconsistent global/basin ocean heat content (OHC) changes were found in different ocean subsurface temperature analyses, especially in recent studies related to the slowdown in global surface temperature rise. This finding challenges the reliability of the ocean subsurface temperature analyses and motivates a more comprehensive inter-comparison between the analyses. Here we compare the OHC changes in three ocean analyses (Ishii, EN4 and IAP) to investigate the uncertainty in OHC in four major ocean basins from decadal to multi-decadal scales. First, all products show an increase of OHC since 1970 in each ocean basin revealing a robust warming, although the warming rates are not identical. The geographical patterns, the key modes and the vertical structure of OHC changes are consistent among the three datasets, implying that the main OHC variabilities can be robustly represented. However, large discrepancies are found in the percentage of basinal ocean heating related to the global ocean, with the largest differences in the Pacific and Southern Ocean. Meanwhile, we find a large discrepancy of ocean heat storage in different layers, especially within 300–700 m in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. Furthermore, the near surface analysis of Ishii and IAP are consistent with sea surface temperature (SST) products, but EN4 is found to underestimate the long-term trend. Compared with ocean heat storage derived from the atmospheric budget equation, all products show consistent seasonal cycles of OHC in the upper 1500 m especially during 2008 to 2012. Overall, our analyses further the understanding of the observed OHC variations, and we recommend a careful quantification of errors in the ocean analyses.

The study was co-authored by John P. Abraham, this guy:

For those of you that don’t know, he’s part of the wrongheadedly named “skeptical science” crew of 97% consensus baiters. He’s also an activist, writing political commentary for The Guardian.

For example:

Climate change will have very long lasting consequences that we will be dealing with long after he is gone. Long after other issues like immigration, the economy, debt, jobs, terrorism, or new words like “covfefe” have passed from our minds, the implications of our climate effect will linger. Frankly, no challenge we are facing (except perhaps a potential nuclear war) presents the consequences that climate change does.

And this, sadly, will be the legacy of conservatives in my country. As we wake up to more severe weather, more droughts, heat waves, rising seas, severe storms, the world will remember that these issues could have been solved long ago but for an ideology and tribalism.


Talk about misguided, even the IPCC doesn’t think we are getting more severe weather..

He’s also not a climate scientist, nor even a meteorologist, but rather a mechanical engineer.

Just like the antics of of his buddies John Cook and Stephan Lewandowski, I don’t trust this guy to come up with accurate and unbiased science. The key red flag is the sentence in the abstract:

“Inconsistent global/basin ocean heat content (OHC) changes were found in different ocean subsurface temperature analyses…”

Abraham is playing the “order out of chaos” game, setting himself up as the unifier of all these “inconsistent”  pieces of data to fit a theory. Just reading the paper makes me think it’s another one of those “conclusions first, justifications second” type paper.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 30, 2017 9:36 am

The global ocean temperature has seasonal variability on the order of several degrees C which belies the idea that the ocean heat content responds slowly to change. Figure out how many Joules it takes to change the global ocean temperatures by 2-3C and now try and explain where this energy is hiding?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 12:12 pm

Yes, did they provide a mechanism? In any scientific endeavor a conclusion should end or begin with a mechanism. I might have missed it.

Reply to  Mick
June 30, 2017 2:49 pm

Why carbon dioxide is the mechanism kid… are you some kind of science denier? lol!
In other news South Dakota corn and wheat crops experienced a frost this morning. To be fair to global warming scientists around the world… they never said anything about snow and frost being a rare event in summer… just winter.

Reply to  Mick
July 1, 2017 8:15 pm

If he’s a mechanical engineer, he should know something about mechanisms.

David A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 2:44 pm

Well,whatever OHC increase we may have had, CO2 is not the cause. Per IPCC dogma surface warming is a RESULT of the troposphere warming; a sort of top down cascade. The problem is the heat is MIA in the troposphere. Therefore most surface T increase is not a result of CO2, ergo any OHC increase is likewise not from top down GHG warming.
Most likely the surface record is FUBAR, and OHC as well.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 1, 2017 1:51 am

That might be true of surface temperatures, but I have a hard time believing that the temperatures of the deep ocean vary much at all seasonally. The changes this study discusses are dwarfed by the total heat content stored in the oceans, so maybe the point should be more precisely made that, if the ocean’s surface waters respond to seasonal changes to the tune of 2-3C by interaction with the boundary conditions at the surface, and deep water shows insignificant changes in temperature compared to that at the surface, how can heat disappear undetected into the depths without first being reflected in temperatures at the ocean surface and in the air above it?

Reply to  Kurt
July 1, 2017 8:24 am

Yes, the temperatures of the deep ocean do not exhibit any diurnal or seasonal variability which gives the argument of ‘heat hidden in the depths’ about as much legitimacy as the Earth centric Universe hypothesis.
On Earth, the deep ocean temperature is set by the density/temperature profile of the water separating the solid surface beneath from the virtual surface of the planet in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun above (ocean surface and bits of land that poke through). As long as the poles provide cold water from melting ice, the deep ocean will remain close to 0C, even at the equator.
It’s also important to note that the transmission of heat down through the thermocline (based on the thermal conductivity of water) is only 1 W/m^2 or so which is not enough flux to cool the surface, while the flux being emitted from the top of the ocean is between 300 and 400 W/m^2.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 2, 2017 5:52 am

All the Joules you need come from deep sea tectonic plate seepage. Could not find the theory advanced by a Geologist on these pages last year (?). Can somebody resurrect the article as I am not using the right keywords to pull up the link?

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 2, 2017 8:20 am

Here is the link I was looking for.

June 30, 2017 9:38 am

When that boogie monster of trapped heat ever rises to the surface and says “BOO!” We are doomed as Frazer (Dad’s Army) would say: “We’re doomed, doomed.” !

M Seward
Reply to  Steve
June 30, 2017 2:37 pm

Steve, that is about the level at which this ‘study’ is aimed. It seems to me that the Chinese have extended their ‘hacking’ program and, having found a useful idiot in Professor Abraham, have decided to tap into the fears and phobias of a segment of the Western populace regarding ‘deadly climate change’.
Considering the respect the Chinese regime extends to presumption of innocence, the political system in Hong Kong, the rights of ethnic Chinese of other nationalities, the law of the sea as applies to the South China Sea etc etc its not like they would not take advantage of such evangelical fools as Abrahams.

June 30, 2017 9:42 am

Well, right now according to Ryan Maue’s NCEP CFSR/CFSv2 (air) temp anomaly chart that is comprised of the initialization temps to the global models, the global anomaly compared to 1981 – 2010 climatology is just .2C above. We are also less than .1C above for the southern hemisphere, which if I judge the map right, is mostly water!
So after 37 years we are just about where we started. So if the oceans are so full of heat, just where is it? (hint- in outer space).

D. J. Hawkins
June 30, 2017 9:47 am

I seem to remember a step change in OHC data as the Argo buoys came on line. There was a ramp during the 5 or so years as they came on line and it’s been flattish ever since. Maybe re-plot the data after full deployment and see what that says, eh?

Steve Case
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 30, 2017 10:04 am
D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Steve Case
June 30, 2017 11:19 am

That was an interesting sidebar. The article is from 2008, and full deployment of Argo didn’t happen until November of 2007. There was barely a full year of data available at the time the article was published. What has happened since then?

Reply to  Steve Case
July 1, 2017 9:38 am

It showed that one method of measuring temperature had a bias against an other method of easing temperature. This is often the case. The earlier method was reading higher than the new method. This is a 50/50 probability (unless they are both have equal biases) so it was either going to be hotter or cooler when the method was switched. The conclusion if you had read thar far was that the oceans are warming up and the water level is rising at a faster rate.

Ted Soares
Reply to  Steve Case
July 1, 2017 10:40 am

From the NASA article (how to make ocean cooling go away):
“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.”

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 30, 2017 10:06 am

There is also a step change in the rate of sea level rise due to the shift from tide gauges to satellite measurements. Both the OHC measurements and the rate of increase in SLR are distorted due to the change in the method of measurement. Try to explain that concept to the real science deniers

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
July 1, 2017 12:57 am

We have plenty of data for the Antarctic Ocean. /sarc

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
July 2, 2017 11:18 pm

Tide gauges are still collecting data, so if there has been a “shift” it has been completely voluntary. Frankly, I see no advantage whatsoever to measuring sea level by satellite. Sure, satellites give you coverage in remote places where we don’t have tide gauges, but we only care about sea level rise on the coasts where we can just put a tide gauge.

Owen in GA
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 1, 2017 10:12 am

If you remember, there were a number of buoys showing cooling ocean temperatures. Rather than send a mission out to collect those buoys and check their calibration, they simply removed them from the dataset.
If you have a Gaussian distribution about a mean, but remove all the readings below the mean or even just those beyond one standard deviation below the mean, you can create the desired warming of your dataset.
If there were some that “failed” low without explanations, wouldn’t that imply there were likely units that “failed” high as well? If one only removes data contrary to expectations, one reinforces those expectations nicely, but is it real?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 30, 2017 9:49 am

The very first sentence of this piece :
“More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. ”
Am I mistaken in thinking that the second half of this sentence does not follow from the first at all?

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 30, 2017 10:04 am

Yes, nothing about that sentence makes sense. First of all, during half the year, the planet is receiving more incident energy than its emitting, the energy imbalance is positive and the planet warms. For the other half, the planet is emitting more energy than its receiving, the imbalance is negative and the planet cools. This should be obvious regarding the seasonal variability of an individual hemisphere, but what’s not obvious is owing to significant asymmetries in the positioning and amount of land and water and the fact that little energy can be transported between hemispheres is that the N hemisphere has significantly more seasonal variability than the S hemisphere, even in the oceans, so the net effect is that the planet exhibits the signature of the N hemisphere which is to heat up during the N hemisphere summer and to cool down during the N hemisphere winter with a p-p variability of about 5C for the planet as a whole and between about 2 and 3 C for the oceans themselves.
The idea that the ocean heat content is out of balance and monotonically warming is so contradictory to the physics, logic and data it’s bizarre how an ostensibly peer reviewed study would deviate so far from the ground truth. This is yet another indication of how distorted and broken ‘consensus’ climate science has become.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 10:21 am

Well said .

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 1:42 pm

Good explanation co2isnotevil. Here is a graphic illustrating your point. I also did an analysis looking for any residual buildup of heat across the transitions from summers to winters, and found none. Granted I studied land station records since they are more volatile and any warming more likely to show up. It did not.comment image

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 2:01 pm

Atmospheric pressure is transferred between the hemispheres. This is particularly noticable in warmer years when atmospheric pressure is higher.
This year due to the cooling pressure is lower in the NH, and lower still in the SH, that is why there had been no hurricanes or cyclones of substance.
They call it fluid dynamics.

Reply to  ozonebust
June 30, 2017 2:09 pm

Yes, there’s a small transfer, but the atmosphere isn’t capable enough to transfer the amount of heat required to manifest the seasonal change the temperature of a hemisphere’s oceans, even if we’re only talking about the top few 100m. If you examine the global ocean and atmospheric circulation currents, they’re all parallel to the equator which is the condition that minimizes the transfer of energy across the equator due to atmospheric winds or ocean currents.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 2:39 pm

My comments were divided above sea surface.
Ron Clutz
Nice article. Your chart can also be used as guide to the pressure balance between the hemispheres as a result of the September Equinox. Late September the NH pressure peaks, at almost exactly the same time as the SH pressure release.
I am referring to hemisphere pressure.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 2:41 pm

My comments were about above sea surface. For clarity.

David A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 3:06 pm

Well it is possibly an assumtion that the earth cools in the SH summer. Yes the atmosphere cools, yet the atmospher holds about .1% of the oceans energy. In the SH summer the earth is closer to the Sun and receiving immensely more daily energy. ( about 90 w per sq M )
Yet the SH is over 80 percent ocean. So perhaps, depending on cloud cover, the SH summer recharges the oceans, and this SW radiation, penetrating up to 800`, is lost to the atmosphere for a time.
As to rhe net annual OHC and any change, I agree and consider our current estimates to be a WAG, heavily seasoned with confirmation bias.
With increased NH albedo and increased ocean absorbtion of insolation into the oceans, the atmosphere definitely cools. But I have never seen the net balance quantified. ( let alone modeled by GCMs)

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 30, 2017 10:10 am

The wording is incorrect for what they are trying to imply. The end of the sentence should have read “…consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) (HAS) increas(ed). ”, for their statement to make sense. If 90% of the supposed imbalance entered into the oceans, then the heat content of the oceans has increased.
Outside of that imo, global warming is always about the oceans gaining heat. That is the cause of Warm Periods.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 30, 2017 10:22 am

Here we go again, the steel marble is heating up the cannon ball- and quicker than ever! How does “honest Abe” explain away that the oceans can hold 1000 times the heat the atmosphere can?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 1, 2017 10:07 am

Specific heat per unit volume is over 1000 times greater for water than air

June 30, 2017 9:49 am

How do the mid depth temperatures increase of the layers above and below do not increase. Does the heat magically transport there?

Reply to  maudbid
June 30, 2017 10:13 am

Yes, no, and maybe.

Reply to  maudbid
June 30, 2017 12:16 pm

We call it “The FM priciple”, Friggin’ magic.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  maudbid
June 30, 2017 3:05 pm

the mid depth stole the heat from the upper and lower layers … the mid depth is obviously a white male conservative …

June 30, 2017 9:50 am

From the summary of the paper:
“Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used, for instance high-resolution model outputs, sea level data, etc.”

Richard M
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 30, 2017 10:42 am

Yup, and RSS just announced their new TLT data which is also “improved” with model input. This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

Mr Julian Forbes-Laird
Reply to  Richard M
June 30, 2017 10:57 am

Note the author… Zeke Howsyourfather, he of the ‘revise the bouy data up to match the ship data, Karl was right’ department. No further analysis required though worth noting that every AGW revision of any data always makes things warmer… fancy that

Bill Illis
Reply to  Richard M
June 30, 2017 1:18 pm

Nobody understood the crossing-times of these satellites before.
Its not like NASA knew how to track their own satellites or put them into orbit for 10 years or so.
Its clear all the data must be adjusted up because all 15 satellites they used over the years tended to underestimate the warming.

Reply to  Richard M
June 30, 2017 3:03 pm

Yes. The key statement when you read it is:
“and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments”
In other words they used the excuse of adjusting for orbital decay impacts (a real problem) to adjust the satellite record using a combination of their own heavily adjusted “homogenized” surface temperature record and heavily biased climate models.
What an absolute crock.

Reply to  Richard M
June 30, 2017 5:22 pm

This is obviously some strange new meaning of the word “correction” I wasn’t previously aware of . . .

Reply to  Richard M
June 30, 2017 5:31 pm

Oh, and wasn’t Carl Mears of RSS on that video with Mann & Schmidt about 6 months ago claiming that the land-based temp. data were more reliable than the satellites?
Not suspicious at all.
(I seem to remember several predictions here that an “adjustment” to RSS was on its way!)

Reply to  Richard M
July 1, 2017 3:32 am

John Christy and Roy Spencer seems to be the last independent providers of satellite temperature data sets (UAH). They have informed that they will not be doing that forever, eventually they will retire. I hope United States administration ensures that their work will be continued in an independent way:
“Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. ”

Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 30, 2017 10:55 am

… “synthetic data” — well, that’s a new one on ME. Is that anything like fake data?
Off to read some CNN “synthetic news” now.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 30, 2017 11:17 am

They have been using synthetic data in the Land Temperarture sets for years.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 30, 2017 2:34 pm

Nest generation science standards in the United States:
«Models can be used to predict the behavior of a system, but these predictions have limited precision and reliability due to the assumptions and approximations inherent in models. (HS-PS3-1)» Ref.: Disciplinary Core Idea Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards
The authors of this study seem to be below high school standard in that respect.
However, I got 455 hits on the word «model» in that standard, but only one warning as cited above.
Let us hope that the teacher remembers to mention that warning, and that the students are not asleep. The United States might get a next generation with a blind belief in models.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 1, 2017 2:01 am

Just focus on the first part of that quote for a second: “Since one can never re-observe the ocean in the past, some synthetic data should be used . . . ” The press release stated that “[w]e say in science that a measurement not made is a measurement lost forever.” Which is it?
Second, taken literally, the phrase “synthetic data” is an oxymoron – practically, it’s being used as a euphemism for “fabricated data.” These guys are actually advocating that made up measurements should be used to substitute for measurements that weren’t made in the past.

Reply to  Kurt
July 1, 2017 3:09 am

That was very well observed and phrased. 🙂

Clyde Spencer
June 30, 2017 9:58 am

The masthead figure gives energy expressed a w/m^2. However, it is supposedly for the volume of water from the surface to 2,000 m. It seems to me that the appropriate unit should be w/m^3.
John P. Abraham seems to be as well qualified as Bill Nye! 🙂

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 30, 2017 10:09 am

Only the top layer of the ocean stores heat. Anything below about the mid point of the thermocline is colder than the average temperature of the planet, thus stores ‘negative’ heat relative to the average surface temperature.
This explains why the ocean responds so much faster than claimed. Most of it’s volume stores cold, not heat, at least relative to the average and the average is all that really matters relative to climate change.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 12:15 pm

Unless you are talking about a layer one molecule thick, it should still be expressed in units of volume, not area!
If what you say is true, why are they looking below the thermocline? I know, I should ask them.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 30, 2017 12:58 pm

They’re looking below the thermocline because there’s no where else for the heat to ‘hide’.
When I look at the thermocline, I see a layer of insulation between the deep ocean cold and warm surface layers. Water is not a particularly good insulator, but it’s R value is finite and at a sufficient thickness, for example the thickness of the thermocline, it can and does act as an insulator. Compare the temperature profile of the ocean with the temperature profile across an insulating wall.
This tells me that the planet stores solar energy as the temperature difference between the deep ocean cold and warmer surface, analogous to how a capacitor stores energy in an electric field. This means that the charging and discharging of this thermal reserve, one side of which is fixed at near 0C and the other side fluctuating around the average surface temperature of the surface, happens at much shorter time scales then the consensus believes since only the thickness of the thermocline and temperature of the top layer is varying and not the ‘temperature’ of the entire mass of the oceans volume.
We can even express this with the same math used to express the charging and discharging of a capacitor. It Pi is the instantaneous input from the Sun (after albedo) and Po is the instantaneous emissions by the planet, their instantaneous difference is either added to or subtracted from the energy stored by the system. If we call the energy stored by the system E, which is linearly proportional to T, the instantaneous difference between Pi and Po is equal to the rate of change in E, or dE/dt.
Pi = Po + dE/dt
If we arbitrarily define an amount of time, tau, such that all of E can be emitted at the rate Po, we can rewrite this as,
Pi = E/tau + dE/dt
Which you can recognize as the same form of the differential equation that describes the charging and discharging of an RC circuit, where tau = R*C.
The unacknowledged complication is that while E is linearly proportional to T, dE is not linearly proportional to dT since Po is dependent on T raised to the forth power. It doesn’t really matter whether you consider T to be the average 255K temperature of the planet or the 288K average temperature of the surface. In the former case, the calculated sensitivity becomes about 0.3C per W/m^2 (which the consensus considers the ‘no feedback’ sensitivity) while at 288K, it turns out to be closer to 0.2C per W/m^2. For reference, the IPCC claims a sensitivity of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2, where even their lower limit is larger than what an energy driven analysis can support, moveover; most of the results from skeptics fall into the range of between about 0.2 and 0.3C per W/m^2.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 30, 2017 1:47 pm

A stratification layer. The difference in temperature resists mixing.

Reply to  ozonebust
June 30, 2017 2:03 pm

It’s also interesting that if you look at the downward energy flux though the thermocline based on the thermal conductivity of water and temperature difference, it almost exactly offsets the W/m^2 or so of average emissions from the surface below due to the internal heat of the planet.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 1, 2017 3:42 pm

Then it makes absolutely no sense to put “0 – 2000m” in your chart, yes? Taking their “data” at face value, and their obvious possibly mistaken assertion that the increase is being stored by all of the ocean between 0 and 2000 meters – that is 0.001 Watts per cubic meter. In the “hottest” regions.
I’m afraid that I have become more than somewhat jaded. What this looks like is that they: 1) discarded every data set that doesn’t show any warming (and, in fact, may show cooling); 2) tortured the surviving data sets mercilessly to ensure that they would show warming; 3) ran it over with averages (miraculously obtaining far more precision than any instrument could possibly measure, a common “trick” of the trade); and 4) came up with 0.001 W/m^3 of warming for all their efforts.
“Damn it! THAT won’t get us any press, or grants! Wait a minute – tell you what we’ll do, we’ll publish it as W/m^2! That gives us a good alarming number! Call up the media department, Fred, we need to make some adjustments here.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 30, 2017 2:48 pm

Clyde Spencer – It is reasonable to use Wm-2 for the amount of energy reaching/entering/leaving/etc the ocean. In this paper, they appear to have used OHC to calculate how many Wm-2 it would have needed to generate it. The idea is reasonable – ie. it is OK to express it in Wm-2 – but everything else in the paper appears to be very suspect indeed: dodgy assumptions, dodgy data, dodgy models, dodgy estimates, dodgy logic.
The parts of the ocean coloured bright red supposedly represent warming of the order of 2 Wm-2. Over just a part – 1983-2009 – of the period, the amount of direct solar energy penetrating the ocean increased by about 4.5 Wm-2 thanks to changing cloud cover. This dwarfs the amount of energy that could possibly have been delivered into the ocean from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. [NB. This “4.5” and their “2” are different beasts. The “4.5” is energy entering the ocean, while the “2” represents energy entering minus energy leaving].

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 1, 2017 10:28 am

W m-2 is a heat flux which is appropriate for heat entering via the surface. That is how the heat gets in. W m-3 would be appropriate for the integrated enthalpy rise over say 2000m depth. They are obviously talking of a heat flux because your suggested figure of 3 W m-3 would heat the ocean some 30’C in a year!

June 30, 2017 10:01 am

“More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing. ”
Did anyone tell the surface temperature modelers this ??

Reply to  philincalifornia
June 30, 2017 10:24 am

I like the notion of sequestering an imbalance .

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
June 30, 2017 12:36 pm

Does that mean that “the jury is still out”?

June 30, 2017 10:03 am

comment image
I thought it was Jasper Sitwell… The SHIELD agent who was actually working for HYDRA…

Pop Piasa
Reply to  David Middleton
June 30, 2017 10:26 am

Looks at first glance like Sitwell’s glasses have S&H Green Stamps stuck to them.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 30, 2017 10:49 am

He could not be redeemed…

Reply to  David Middleton
June 30, 2017 12:55 pm

Compliance will be rewarded.

Dr. Dave
June 30, 2017 10:06 am

“A just released study, led by Ph. D student WANG Gong-jie from National University of Defence Technology…”
I can’t think of a better institution than the “National University of Defense Technology” to come out with a study designed to support lemmings in other countries as they spend massive amounts of Defense dollars on combating climate change while the Chinese spend their yuans building up actual defense capabilities

June 30, 2017 10:16 am

Here’s a WUWT article from 2015 based on the Argo buoys that shows the opposite of what Wang et al assert.
Since when do PhD students get to be lead authors? What’s this clown’s supervisor doing? Does this mark a change in Chinese government policy?

Reply to  commieBob
June 30, 2017 1:59 pm

He doesn’t even mention the Argo buoys in his article (probably wise, from his angle).

Reply to  commieBob
July 1, 2017 4:40 am

All Phd students have to write papers, one paper per year, one conference per year, and your Professor is always the second named author on each paper.
That is how it is….

Reply to  steverichards1984
July 1, 2017 10:27 am

My post was not as funny as I thought it was.
Speaking seriously, it is very possible to get one’s PhD with zero first author papers and zero conferences … and zero chance of a tenure track position.

Reply to  steverichards1984
July 1, 2017 10:32 am

Depends on the Journal. Most go alphabetically. So a student called Aaron has a tremendous advantage

Reply to  commieBob
July 1, 2017 10:30 am

De Brownie and Moessbauer did

Tom Halla
June 30, 2017 10:25 am

A meta-analysis, that is, working off other published studies? And claiming that the other quoted studies were wrong, without using any new evidence?

A. Scott
June 30, 2017 10:31 am

Chinese scientists paired with leading catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent and activist John Abraham makes for an etirely unbelievable and highly suspect paper.
A paper that not surprisingly attempts to debunk recent papers, including by leading warmists Ben Santer, Michael Mann et all, who admitted the pause was real and climates models were failures – due to flawed assumptions – greatly overstating climate sensitivity to increased CO2
This ranks right up there with Lewandowsky and Cooks retracted Moon Landing smear…

Reply to  A. Scott
June 30, 2017 1:03 pm

Chinese scientists paired with leading catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent and activists gave us this:
“The American scientific film “the Day After Tomorrow”, which demonstrated “the breath-taking catastrophe brought to mankind by climate change”…

The First International School on Climate System And Climate Chang (ISCS)

[Date: 2004-11-19]  [Author:Yan Zhang,Yiming Liu]


The First International School on Climate System And Climate Chang (ISCS), sponsored by China Meteorological Administration (CMA) and co-sponsored by the Office of IPCC Working Group I, State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs and National Natural Science Foundation of China, was held in CMA from August 23 to September 1, 2004. It received extensive attention from the meteorological departments and relevant scientific research institutions. More than 16o students including young researchers, doctoral candidates and master degree candidates specialized in climate system and climate change research took part in the study. They are from over 40 organizations, such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Education as well as CMA National Climate Centre, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS) and eight meteorological institutes, National Satellite Meteorological Centre, seven Regional Meteorological Centres, provincial meteorological bureaus, etc.
Fifteen world famous experts from countries including France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, U.S.A., Canada and China, were invited to serve as the lecturers of ISCS. They were: Dr. Jean Jouzel from France, Vice-Chairman of IPCC Working Group I; Dr. Robert Delmas from France, Director of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics and Environment; Dr. Ulrich Cubasch from the Meteorological Institute in Free University Berlin; Dr. In-Sik Kang, Director of the Climate Environment System Research Center of Seoul National University; Dr. Akio Kitoh, Director of the Climate Research Division of the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan Meteorological Agency; Dr. John Ogren and Dr. Zhanqing Li from U.S.A; Dr. Daniel Rosenfeld from Israel; Dr. Chung-Kyu Park and Dr. Won-Tae Yun from Korean Meteorological Agency; as well as some renowned scientists in China, namely, Prof. Ding Yihui, Dr. Dong WenJie, Prof. Lin Er’Da , Prof. Pan Jiahua, Mr. Chen ZhenLin.
This session of School includes 45 teaching hours altogether and most of them were conducted in English. The wonderful lectures given by Chinese and foreign experts attracted great interest of the participants. During the session, the students were also invited to watch the American scientific film ” the Day After Tomorrow”, which demonstrated “the breath-taking catastrophe brought to mankind by climate change”, and visit the GAW station in Shangdianzi, Miyun District, Beijing and the Great Walls in Simatai and Gubeikou.
Beijing Climate Center

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
July 1, 2017 3:17 am

Wow, Trump is right.

June 30, 2017 10:32 am

Once again, Chicken Little speaks, and the world hasn’t yet learned.

Stephen Greene
June 30, 2017 10:32 am

With all due respect, listening to this man’s science invokes everything I tell my students what NOT to do when designing and performing an experiment.

Pop Piasa
June 30, 2017 10:32 am

Does this mean that wetsuits will become obsolete? Oh happy day! One less stinky thing to deal with.

Andrew Burnette
Reply to  Pop Piasa
June 30, 2017 10:59 am

It also means Trump was right… the Chinese ARE making this up!

Steve Fraser
June 30, 2017 10:52 am

I found it strange that a 56-year period of ocean temp was used, when Climategate told us that the Southerrn Hemisphere data was sparse, and mostly interpolated (like, ‘made up’.)

Reply to  Steve Fraser
June 30, 2017 2:55 pm

Interpolated and extrapolated
deep ocean measurement back to 1960 are virtually non existent. Pretending that they can calculate a global OHC that far back is simply stupid and dishonest. Like most of Abraham’s politically motivated garbage.

William Astley
June 30, 2017 11:04 am

The oceans did warm. The oceans now appear to be now cooling.
Based on the paleo record (if the warming in the last 150 years was natural and based on what has happened cyclically before) the current cooling will intensify in the same cooling region (note the cooling is not global it is latitude specific/concentrated, which is one of the observational facts that can be used to determine the solar cycle mechanisms).
Obviously if the cooling does occur, a significant climate modulation mechanism is increasing back to its normal strength.
The cyclic cooling and warming in the paleo record is centered around a band of the earth, between 40 to 60 degrees latitude, both hemispheres.
The cooling in the North Atlantic is around 10C, for the largest events.
It is super weird that no one has solved this problem of what the heck causes the cyclic warming and cooling, in the paleo record.

June 30, 2017 11:05 am

China pulling ahead.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  JCH
June 30, 2017 11:52 am

Or a leg.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  JCH
June 30, 2017 1:03 pm

Why are you pulling China?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 30, 2017 2:46 pm

Yikes, is that like “turning Japanese”?

Wim Röst
June 30, 2017 11:12 am

Pat Frank in ‘Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: The surface air temperature record’
“More recently, Argo buoys were field calibrated against very accurate CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth) measurements and exhibited average RMS errors of ±0.56 C.”
WR: how many W/m2 do you need to get a difference of 0.56C for 0-2000m?

Reply to  Wim Röst
June 30, 2017 3:30 pm

Over 57 years : 2.606882252 Wm-2 (approx)

Wim Röst
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 30, 2017 8:28 pm

Thank you Mike. Would you like to give us the calculation?

June 30, 2017 11:20 am

More than 90% of the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean and consequently the ocean heat content (OHC) is increasing.
This is such a horrible use of language that I have to add my own two cents to the bucket of criticisms.
An imbalance is a relationship, NOT a quantity or an entity. To be sequestered is to be hidden away.
How can a non-entity/non-quantity, then, be hidden away? Does this mean that it is hidden away even better?
Oh, but I guess if we incorporate it into an acronym (i.e, EEI), then this makes it okay. So, we have a non-entity/non-quantity hiding in the ocean causing an addition to the measure of something else. Great.
Also, how do you assign a percentage to a relationship. Wait, let me give it a shot here: “30% of my intellectual integrity balance (IIE) is decreased, every time I read a sentence like this.”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 30, 2017 2:29 pm

I think you could change it to “90% of the earth’s net energy imbalance (ENEI) in the climate system is sequestered in the ocean” — then it answers all of your questions. Most of us understand the concept as “net”.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 30, 2017 3:08 pm

What he is trying to say is that 90% of the energy imbalance they EXPECT to see from their climate models is not found. Therefore it must “sequestered” ( hidden ) somewhere. It’s basically Trenberth’s “missing heat” which he is trying to find.
Since the early record for deep ocean temperatures is very sparse, this is a good place to do some data massaging and extrapolating to get the desired result.
It’s not a horrible use of language it is a deliberate twisting of language to suggest that something unproven actually exists and is ‘hidden’ somewhere.
Start with the assumption that there is an “imbalance” and then use that to “prove” that that the SST records which do not show it must be incorrect. Defective logic. This is not science, it is politics.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 30, 2017 11:31 pm

Robert, your just going to have to live with the fact that you live in a world full of illiterate boobs. (sadly, we don’t possess your literary flare) i take it that you are the same Kernodle that wrote the ice core piece that dr curry oft refers to. Have you other such writings? i really enjoyed reading that piece. (i always wondered what cold dark ice cave the lone commentor came crawling out of)…

June 30, 2017 11:26 am

Well, I just blew another attempt at wit. [Maybe you should just give it up, Kernodle.]
… should have been “My intellectual integrity imbalance is increased by 30%, every time I read a sentence like this.”

June 30, 2017 11:33 am

If you told me to close my eyes and picture a political commentator for the Guardian, his is pretty much the image I would conjure up. Talk about stereotype..

Reply to  powers2be
June 30, 2017 3:11 pm

Must be a highly intelligent boffin, he’s got an egg-head.
Unless you have an egg-head at least as good has his, you should just bow down and listen. It’s a visual form of appeal to authority.

June 30, 2017 11:47 am

Let’s try to be fair…let’s suppose that these guys are trying an “honest’ approach with their little new hypothesis or their so called scientific analyzes…by trying to offer something for the first time in the proper scientific criteria, the context of falsification….let\s consider that these guys ore trying to at least approach the conversation honestly….
According to a very simple explanation of the scientific method, a so simple one that it is in the context of one for dummies……if the experiment disagrees with your theories or hypothesis or the conclusion of a given analyses, then you know all of it remains falsified, regardless of ones IQ, beauty, authority or the uniform, it still remains falsified….
The problem of Abraham, in this case,and his companions is that the EEI that he refers to, in the way he refers to it , is actually played in the very expensive experiment, the GCMs, at which even the policy to change the global future economy is based at.
The experiment does not produce anything remotely close to what these guys try to imply by their analyses, with no any data to actually support it, about the OHC increase.
Actually the experiment, a very expensive one at that, produces Hot Spots in Atmosphere, no any hot spots in the depth or any where in the oceans…… no any OHC increase as claimed by their analyses…..
Tough, but in this context, their claims and “conclusions” remain falsified, and with any other merit than that in the scientific criteria…
But still, the benefit of the doubt requires that at least the approach may to a degree be considered as with an intent towards a honest conversation…..hopefully….
Please don\t mind much any writing or linguistic errors, as I have typed this quickly and not double or triple checked..:)
Thanks Anthony..:)

Reply to  whiten
June 30, 2017 10:59 pm

Whiten, don’t worry so much about your english, the gist of what you say always gets through. (english is my native tongue and nobody ever understands a word that i say… ☺) Let me ask you here, to your knowledge, do climate models predict a warming ocean at all? i take it from your comment that the answer is NO. That’s always been a mystery to me as to whether or not climate models actually do. My take on things is that if you raise SSTs above an equilibrium state temperature, then the oceans warm for centuries. Oceans have a temperature gradient. If you raise the surface temp, then a whole new gradient has to be established taking hundreds of years. If models don’t account for this, then they are going to be way off. (the oceans becoming a great big heat sink)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
July 1, 2017 10:07 am

June 30, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Thank you for your reply…..
Your question…..
“Let me ask you here, to your knowledge, do climate models predict a warming ocean at all?”
Let’s keep the argument in the context of OHC.
Simple answer will be that to my understanding and knowledge……first the GCMs are no climate models, these models do not do climate…….second the variation of SST temps and other deeper layers temp variation do not clearly and certainly point to the actual OHC variation and the direction of it.
It can be contemplated that some time the OHC variation can be in a different sign to such other temp variations over time, so in its own the relying in the SST and other deeper layers in estimating which way the OHC is varying, if at all, is not good enough….(As with generally the climatic cooling trend, where for some considerable time the oceans may be sequestering heat from atmosphere but the SST may be going down.)
The OHC in this aspect shows that its variation does not happen solely or mainly due to the function of the oceans sequestrating heat from the atmosphere.
The GCMs exist as result of an understanding of the Atmosphere-Earth’s surface coupling in accordance to energy circulation, where the oceans surface is the main and dominant surface considered….
So as far as this goes, my point and my understanding is that no, GCMs do not do any oceans warming when we have to consider that in the aspect and relation to OHC as going up or not, regardless of any SST variation in the GCMs…..
But what actually, what GCMs do, as is expected in the case of the warming solely caused by the radiation imbalance, is the warming and the increase of the Atmospheres Heat Content with a very distinguished feature….hot spots in Tropics….with no any significant or detectable increase of OHC.
So simply relying in SST variation or other deeper oceanic layers variations, by not considering the Atmosphere-Ocean coupling and its functioning correctly, it is not good enough and more than not can lead to incorrect conclusion, when actually there is a huge room for such mistakes to happen…
There is no way to address correctly the OHC and its variation so superficially and directly, and claim that the estimations and the conclusions are right or supposedly correct….especially when it comes to the illogical AGW approach…
Another side explanation why GCMs may and could not do any OHC increase…….
The GCMs do not do climate equilibrium, or what more correctly can be termed as atmospheric thermal equilibrium, therefor GCMs can have an atmospheric warming and an atmospheric thermal expansion without the oceans triggered to do any meaningful sequestration of the atmospheric warming…free to keep the atmosphere warming to the max possible atmospheric thermal expansion without the oceans getting in any meaningful heat sequestration…..with clear tropical hot spot.
So when considering these guys analyzes and the conclusion of the ocean heat sequestration and the OHC increase, as claimed, than there not only the hot spots required to be real, but also the hot spots in tropics should be more significant, as in reality versus GCMs the system has a climate equilibrium, and to push it to a new one as claimed, more energy and heat should be manifested in the tropics, for the HOC to be considered as increasing due to the oceans heat sequestration….
The main thing that AGW still relies on is the portraying and assessment of climate equilibrium, or the atmospheric thermal equilibrium as very weak and flimsy….
From my understanding the GWP (Global Warming Potential) is estimated to somewhere around 8-16 times more potent than it actually is, where the RF increment due to CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration increment is considered as an amplification of warming….very wrongly and incorrectly so.
And this among many other assessments make the climate equilibrium, or the Atmospheric thermal Equilibrium as very very easy to influence and shift as required by the AGW concept.
It is already gone too long……when probably considering my understanding being wrong and incorrect, so I just stopping here and hoping that at least my explanation and point made in this reply is understood or makes some sense, regardless of correctness….
Thanks for asking, and hopefully I have some how answered in a comprehensible way….

EdA the New Yorker
June 30, 2017 11:58 am

Strange that they don’t mention how the runoff of cooling water from Fukushima has upset the Northern Pacific Energy Imbalance (NPEI) over such a wide range.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
June 30, 2017 2:59 pm

Can you provide a citation? I don’t get coherent results searching “Northern Pacific Energy Imbalance (NPEI)”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  EdA the New Yorker
July 1, 2017 6:41 am

References please, otherwise your are claiming BS.

June 30, 2017 11:58 am

Here’s a link to WUWT threads with “John Abraham” in them:

Stephen Skinner
June 30, 2017 12:03 pm

“He’s also not a climate scientist, nor even a meteorologist, but rather a mechanical engineer.”
Being a Climate Scientist doesn’t mean that person is always right on this subject, otherwise that is ‘appeal to authority’. Also being a mechanical engineer should not mean this person can only be wrong on this subject, just as consensus is not proof. In the past there were many polymaths. All that matters is whether what is said is true.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
June 30, 2017 12:29 pm

The warmists have time and again declared that anyone who doesn’t have a degree in climate science should be ignored. (Unless of course they agree with the other climate scientists)

Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2017 1:58 pm

Disagreeing with the consensus, independent of what your degrees are in, seems to be sufficient for the alarmists to disregard anything you say. Beside, what’s a climate science degree anyway? Nowadays, so many of those who claim this title have a degree with ‘eco’ in it, which based on the typical syllabus for such a degree is more like a papal degree than a scientific course of study which almost always prevents them from learning how to be an objective scientist.
What your degrees are in only matters when you’re fresh out of college. Anyone who thinks learning stops after school didn’t learn the most important thing you should have learned, which is how to learn. For my part, I’ve put more time and effort studying the climate than I did to get my engineering degrees.

Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2017 3:11 pm

97 per cent agree with that conclusion

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
June 30, 2017 2:15 pm

co2isnotevil June 30, 2017 at 1:58 pm
“Nowadays, so many of those who claim this title have a degree with ‘eco’ in it, which based on the typical syllabus for such a degree is more like a papal degree than a scientific course”
I visited a University here in the UK and started talking to a student who was studying the environment. He appeared to have no knowledge of the scale and breadth of the last glaciation, such as when the last inter-glacial was, the sea being 100 meters lower than now and the current Great Barrier Reaf only being 8K years old, etc. Puzzling as usually when someone professes an interest in something you expect them to already know a lot of interesting details about their interest.
“Anyone who thinks learning stops after school didn’t learn the most important thing you should have learned, which is how to learn.”

June 30, 2017 12:06 pm

“Where is the heat redistributed in the ocean?” His premise is that during the hiatus the heat gas been getting redistributed to some hidden place. Sorry, that’s not science.

David A
Reply to  Alec Rawls
July 1, 2017 3:31 am

Since ALL GHG WARMING is predicated on the troposphere WARMING 20 % faster then the surface, and the tropghsphere WARMING is 70 percent MIA, then whatever is WARMING the surface or the oceans, ( confirmation bias mostly) it CANNOT be GHGs!
Using wrong models when your observations tell you that the heat from CO2 is MIA is, IMV, fraud.

June 30, 2017 12:13 pm

Until the Argo Bouys past measurements are unreliable

June 30, 2017 12:24 pm

“Climate change will have very long lasting consequences that we will be dealing with long after he is gone. Long after other issues like immigration, the economy, debt, jobs, terrorism, or new words like “covfefe” have passed from our minds, the implications of our climate effect will linger. Frankly, no challenge we are facing (except perhaps a potential nuclear war) presents the consequences that climate change does.
Climate change will have everlasting effects that we will have to deal with forever as the climate is always changing. Long after other issues like immigration, the economy, debt, jobs, terrorism, or new words like “covfefe” [which means “in the end, we win”] have passed from our minds, the always-changing effects of our climate will always be part of our lives. Frankly, no challenge we are facing (except the world-domination goals of the UN, the goals of socialists and liberals, the world domination goals of Islam and globalists) is so relatively slow in its changes that we cannot easily adapt to its challenges.
There, fixed it.

June 30, 2017 12:36 pm

must say
I am skeptical of their findings
I am not sure how anyone can give a ‘global” ocean T with any type of assurance
therefore, I remain skeptical
My results say earth is cooling

Bryan A
June 30, 2017 12:46 pm

I like this part of the quote

And this, sadly, will be the legacy of conservatives in my country. As we wake up to more severe weather, more droughts, heat waves, rising seas, severe storms, the world will remember that these issues could have been solved long ago but for an ideology and tribalism

Sounds like he is indicating that man HAS/HAD/LOST control of the weather/climate back when CO2 was at 280PPM, Preindustrial levels and that If we just return to those levels, we will magically regain control

June 30, 2017 12:53 pm

Isn’t the change in the ocean’s average temperature since 1950 barely large enough to be measurable?

Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 1:06 pm

Hard to know. Because of trade route sampling bias and inconsistent measurement (depth of engine water intake) there simply isn’t any quality data prior to ARGO. But yes, in terms of water temperature, the change is miniscule due to waters high heat capacity. A small difference in an uncertain measurement means the honest answer is dunno.

Reply to  ristvan
June 30, 2017 1:18 pm

The Levitus OHC graph is based mostly on assumption driven models.

Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 1:16 pm

See graphic a couple of comments down.

Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 1:26 pm

It’s less than the sampling error on most of the instruments being used.

Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 2:19 pm

Argo is a nice effort, but they only seem to cover somewhat less than half the ocean’s volume (they go to 2000M).
But based on Bill Illis’ graphic, the answer seems to be that our best guess is that the oceans as a whole warmed less than .1 degrees. Which makes sense, since they mass around 300 times what the atmosphere does.
And since they’re falling ever more out of equilibrium with the atmosphere, oceans should be absorbing ever more heat if you believe in the modern temperatures spike, but I doubt any model captures this very well.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  talldave2
June 30, 2017 2:27 pm

Doesn’t matter. It’s the “hidden heat” which matters. Just because they can’t point to it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Geez. Not to mention, the hidden heat is “robust”.

Reply to  talldave2
July 1, 2017 3:40 am

BTW don’t know if anyone mentioned already, but it looks like most of the ocean’s volume is below 2000m.

June 30, 2017 1:03 pm

You forgot to mention that J P Abraham’s specialist field in engineering is in fluid dynamics. That could lend insight to oceanic matters, but perhaps it’s a fact that didn’t advance your argument.

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 1:22 pm

Agreed. Everything other than rock or sand is fluid dynamics.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ozonebust
July 1, 2017 6:38 am

Even air.

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 1:27 pm

Exactly how would it lead to any insights regarding the ocean?

Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2017 1:38 pm

Umm, the ocean is composed of fluid which has a very complex dynamic behavior?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2017 6:37 am

“Jack Davis June 30, 2017 at 1:38 pm”
And we fully understand this in relation to “climate”?

Bill Illis
June 30, 2017 1:04 pm

NODC Ocean temperature measurements below.
to 100 metres.comment image
to 700 metres.comment image
to 2000 metres.comment image

Reply to  Bill Illis
June 30, 2017 1:14 pm

Percentage of ocean coverage..
Before 2003, basically everything in the SH must have been FABRICATED (as per Phil Jones Climategate comments)
NH isn’t too flash, either.
I remember seeing a youtube somewhere showing that most data came from the shipping lanes in the North Atlantic… No wonder a 1960’s, 1970’s start point is used. 😉comment image

June 30, 2017 1:14 pm

And the problem with being a mechanical engineer is.
Or would it be easier to list the outstanding issues like sea ice, etc, still unresolved, and the wrong conclusions that scientists have made so far, the results of which we see here.
That’s right it’s a chaotic system, perhaps they just don’t understand the system.
Just saying

Thomas Homer
June 30, 2017 1:25 pm

I saw a hot air balloon the other morning. It got me thinking about how it leverages the unrelenting force of heat to escape its surroundings. How can they be so certain that that heat won’t decide to go hide in the ocean?

June 30, 2017 1:34 pm

I though AGW theory predicted atmospheric warming, not ocean warming.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Sam Grove
June 30, 2017 2:33 pm

AGW theory didn’t know of CO2’s (especially man’s) magical properties.

David A
Reply to  Sam Grove
July 1, 2017 3:42 am

Bingo. First the troposphere is expected to warm, which creates a top down WARMING to the surface, expected to rise w0 percent less then the troposphere.And from there THEN the oceans.
However all GHG ocean- warming MUST come from trophspheric warming FIRST. It aint, therefore if the oceans warm, it is not from GHGs.

Reply to  David A
July 1, 2017 10:50 am

The warming is onto the surface that is where light energy is converted to heat, be it solid or liquid. It then transfers upwards quickly to the atmosphere. Water being transparent absorbs light to a greater depth than land so it retains the heat.

David A
Reply to  David A
July 1, 2017 11:56 pm

Ron, that is not how it works. At the surface GHG are somewhat irrelevant, as conduction (in the atmospheric dense surface) takes place very rapidly compared to radiative transfer. At elevation in the troposphere where radiation happens increased GHG warms that level. Back radiation is absorbed below this level but much of the warming comes from less conduction to this level as it is now warmer. ( However it is only warmer by about 1/3rd of what the models predicted)
Per CAGW IPCC theory, the troposphere as a whole MUST warm 20 percent MORE then the surface. (even more in the tropics, where again the hot spot is MIA) The oceans would ONLY warm from the surface warming SLOWING the cooling of the ocean surface and below – top down cascade. This is built into all the failed models.
Therefore the surface warming more then the troposphere CANNOT be an artifact of CO2. ( UHI, faulty adjustment, made up daily readings, confirmation bias etc… could all account for the surface warming, but not GHGs per IPCC theory. By logical extension the ocean warming as a result of perceived surface warming likewise CANNOT be a result of human caused increase in CO2.

June 30, 2017 2:53 pm

Glacial cycles, as shown by Javier recently, are forced by obliquity oscillation with a 6,500 year lag:comment image
Oceans do NOT warm rapidly except in the diseased imagination of journalists.

Reply to  ptolemy2
June 30, 2017 4:54 pm

That’s right, oceans do not warm rapidly because water has a high specific heat. I don’t think the claim is that rapid heating is happening, just that the ocean is where a lot of the trapped heat has gone over decades.

H. D. Hoese
June 30, 2017 3:31 pm

“Our knowledge of the oceans is still fragmentary and inadequate. In the Pacific and Indian Ocean. large regions exist from which absolutely no information is available, and from most areas only general conditions in certain seasons of the year are known.” From “The Oceans”, Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1942. Did they miss something?

June 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Let’s see if I have my facts right. The planet is near the end of an 11,300 year inter-glacial period of nearly the highest temperatures in over 400,000 years, although not the highest, and, lo and behold, the ocean has warmed. As the planet enters the next ice age, in a few years or a few hundred years, what should one expect to happen? Like maybe the oceans will cool? Yeah, we should shovel more bucks to the UN to fund likely to fail attempts to measure the change in ocean temperatures to a one-hundredth degree C. Give me a break!

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
June 30, 2017 4:55 pm

Tom Bjorklund
June 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm
“Let’s see if I have my facts right. The planet is near the end of an 11,300 year inter-glacial period”
I think the term Holocene confuses you.. 🙂
Turn the number 11,300 to a 15,000 and that makes that “fact” right I think.

Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2017 5:54 pm

I asked for it! Fact checkers are always welcome. Not to put too fine a point on the time period, but the Holocene began 11,700 years BP with the end of the last ice age. During a transition period of about 400 years, the average earth temperature increased about eight degrees C and has been oscillating above and below that initial increase about one degree C for the past 11.300 years. My comment was meant to reference that “warm period.”
My question is: How much money should be spent to increase the number of ocean temperature measurements and the number of significant decimals of the measurements to show that oceans are warming and cooling slightly during an inter-glacial period? How about doing a cost-benefit analysis before spending the research budget to collect data based on a whim? I doubt that a lifetime of data collection would prove to be worth the cost of the results. The shrimp-on-a-treadmill project comes mind. Maybe, better understanding the available data could be an alternative.

Reply to  Tom Bjorklund
June 30, 2017 5:06 pm

No, we should adopt sustainable energy practices – which are fast proving to be economically most sensible anyway. That way we stay in control no matter when the next cooling might or might not arrive. To push on as usual while the clear signals of planetary distress we have are all about us would be beyond foolish.

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 5:16 pm

And those clear signs of planetary distress all around us are . . .

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 6:37 pm

Chris, if you haven’t picked up on the signs yet you haven’t been paying attention – or paying attention with faulty antennae. You’re not likely to listen to me now.
The evidence is pretty convincing if you come to it with respect for science and for the tremendous investment in exploring our planet’s systems that society has made over very many years

Reply to  Jack Davis
July 1, 2017 11:47 am

No, we just don’t drink the kool-aid you mind numbed chicken little clowns do.

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 7:34 pm

Thanks for that- that’s hilarious!

Reply to  Jack Davis
June 30, 2017 8:40 pm

JRP – you’re welcome.

David A
Reply to  Jack Davis
July 1, 2017 3:51 am

Jack, what signs? You sound religious, not scientific. As to facts, we have zero increase in the rate of SL rise, ( 2 mm per year for geo stationary tide guages) zero increase in hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, 30 years of antartica sea ice INCREASING ( until last year) ten years of flat arctic sea ice, likely to increase as the AMO goes negative, and plants worldwide growing about 20 percent more food, on the same amount of land with ZERO increase in water use, due to inreases atmospheric CO2!
So Jack, what signs?

Reply to  Jack Davis
July 1, 2017 1:38 pm

David A – you’re not keeping up. Sea level rise-rate increase is probably the hardest to ascertain, but recent work indicates the rate increased 50% in the twenty years to 2013.
You must be watching the ends of a different planet to the one I’m watching, where this year the ice is under savage attack in both polar regions.
It comes down to who you believe – I choose to believe the scientists in the field and the evidence of my own scientifically educated senses.

David A
Reply to  Jack Davis
July 2, 2017 12:16 am

Sorry Jack but you missed, ( 2 mm per year for geo stationary tide gauges) That is all tide gauges that are known not to be rising or falling. By far our most accurate SL measurements compared to greatly adjusted satellites affected by many factors including 18 year lunar cycles.
The southern oceans have been cooling for much of the past 30 years, and sea ice did increase there steadily over that period. I Guess you missed ( until last year) Do you imagine CO2 had no affect for 30 years, then suddenly was caused to a downward blip in SH sea ice, or were the rare and extreme storms outlined on WUWT the cause of that downturn, and how would your SUV have caused those storms? Did you miss the RECORD snow accumulation on Greenland this year?
BTW Jack, the ice is not under “savage attack” Your emotive is sad, but indicative of a highly non-scientific bias. The ten year trend since 2007 is quite flat. Your opinion on this is irrelevant. Starting NH sea ice trends in 1979, the peak of the ice age scare and ignoring the earlier satellite data showing much less ice is a un-scientific cherry pick.
Jack, I choose to understand what the peer review literature and national and international data basis say. (If they conflict I read both sides and make up my mind based on logic) As there are literally thousands of papers that support skepticism of CAGW, and those papers and observations are overwhelming in demonstrating a failed CAGW hypothesis, while all the benefits of CO2 continue to manifest in real world observation, I support skeptics as rational and logical.

Reply to  Jack Davis
July 2, 2017 3:38 am

Uh-huh David A – you choose to dismiss the satelite sea level data because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions and go with the deniers favorite red herring – manipulated tide gauge data. How silly of us to spend all that money on building the fabulously accurate orbital instruments when all they can do is produce readings you immediately recognise as wrong! We should have just asked you eh?
It’s a slow motion train crash mate. You will be proved wrong, but by then you and I may be gone, leaving the mess behind us.
I don’t blame you – your stance is in the normal range of human response, but so is mine.
I’m actually quite optimistic about the whole thing straightening out eventually – centuries on. It’s just a shame we have so many who fail to see what is happening and obstruct the path of best management of the difficult situation the planet finds itself in.
Cheers – I’m out.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jack Davis
July 2, 2017 5:06 am

“Jack Davis July 2, 2017 at 3:38 am
Uh-huh David A – you choose to dismiss the satelite sea level data because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions and go with the deniers favorite red herring – manipulated tide gauge data.
Tide gauges? How about Emsworth, southern England. Or Portsmouth, Gosport or Exeter? No show on the SL data. Been relatively static for a good few hundred years.

June 30, 2017 4:52 pm
July 1, 2017 12:45 am

“We say in science that a measurement not made is a measurement lost forever.”
Tell that to the tree ring people.

July 1, 2017 2:22 am

If the oceans are warming they will be outgassing CO2.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
July 1, 2017 4:28 am

Frankly, no challenge we are facing (except perhaps a potential nuclear war) presents the consequences that climate change does.

John P. Abraham seems to have enough integrity to underline his frank moments. Depending on the perspective this one may even be true: if the mann-made climate change challenge is a collapsing ponzi scheme, it’s unlikely to spare John P. Abraham from the consequences of his own choices.

July 1, 2017 5:01 am

I’m confused. The graphic shows the area of the Great Barrier Reef, being decimated by warming seas apparently, as being flat to cooling over those decades. Curious.

David W Thomson
July 1, 2017 7:33 am

Regardless of what the oceans are doing, here in the USA there is something conspicuously absent. What happened to the hot summers where temperatures in the Midwest were well over 100 F for two or more continuous weeks? Instead of the hottest time of the year coming in July and early August, as it did during solar maximum, now the hottest month of the year is June, and it barely hits 100 F.
The paleo records do show that as North America cooled, equatorial regions warmed. But this type of climate behavior is consistent with ice ages, not anthropocentric CO2 global warming. With human induced global warming, the entire planet was forecast to become an easy bake oven on its way to joining Venus as a greenhouse planet.
The shift in climate should be a concern to humans, but CO2 proponents have everything backward. The planet is thawing from its last ice age and mechanisms are pushing the heat out of the Northern Hemisphere. We should be lucky if all we experience is an extended Maunder Minimum and not a full blown new (and sudden) advance of ice.

Peter Sable
July 1, 2017 4:23 pm

I’m a bit confused by the units of temperature: ‘W/m^2″.
How is this measured? Is there a translation to degrees Kelvin?
An anomaly of 1 W/m^2 in the above chart corresponds to how many degrees Kelvin?
What are the error bars?

July 1, 2017 5:07 pm

These young post normal scientists must not have been exposed to ANY graduate level research statistics critique class. Else they would have been cognizant of type 1 errors that emanate from bias. Then again maybe they hope readers are ignorent.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 1, 2017 7:32 pm

Yes, I believe the latter. Most their adherents incline to a degree of ignorance I find charming. Alarming, but charming.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
July 1, 2017 8:50 pm

It is interesting how a fellow engineer, Bob Tisdale, is doing such sterling work developing an understanding of how the ocean currents and emerging phenomena work and behave. Here come another engineer who tosses real science under the bus to generate blather and hide uncertainties. What a waste.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
July 2, 2017 12:19 pm

It takes more than a mechanical engineer to model earth processes. It looks like Newtonian physics is the wrong science. Check out the CERN results in modeling cloud formation using particle physics ( Useful long term climate predictions may never be realized.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
July 2, 2017 1:53 pm

My hypothesis is that the particular technical degree or background a person has, e.g. engineering, physics, etc. is far less important than what the person did with it professionally. People who take their degree and self-select themselves into fields where they never have to fear consequences for being wrong, and often never apply their theories in a way that can be proven right or wrong, tend to be awfully cavalier with what they claim to “know.” They don’t seem to have learned the lesson that you can analyze everything correctly given your state of knowledge, and still be wrong due to facts or circumstances you can’t have foreseen, and since you have no way of assessing the probability that these confounding circumstances exist, absent practical application of the theory to prove whether it’s right or wrong, it’s nothing but useless speculation.

Steve R
July 2, 2017 10:21 am

It takes more than a degree in mechanical engineering to call oneself a mechanical engineer.

Matt G
July 2, 2017 4:19 pm

The 0-2000m trend is scientific nonsense because there are no measurements over most of the ocean below 1000m for most of the time line mentioned especially in the southern hemisphere.
Please note that most of the red areas shown are non existent observed data because it simply does not exist.
Therefore claims of ocean warming rapidly based on made up chart that doesn’t have any observed data for most of it’s timeline. This is no different to speculation and assumption of what the author thinks it might be.
There has been no measurements of rapidly warming ocean, just slight increase in temperatures mainly caused by the Pacific shift and AMO phase change. ENSO in a more positive mode all increases ocean water in the especially the top 300m. The observed rises easily within natural declines in low cloud albedo increasing SW radiation into the ocean.

%d bloggers like this: