By Andy May
A considerable amount of new information on ocean temperature has been gathered since I last wrote about the subject in 2016 here. In my last post on GHCN and the National Temperature Index, it appeared that ocean temperature trends and the thermal energy distribution in oceans dominate climate change. Land-based weather stations are invaluable for weather prediction, but they tell us very little about climate change. The common definition of climate is an overall change in temperature or precipitation over a period longer than 30 years. But even 30 years is a short timeframe, 100 years might be better. On this timescale, ocean temperature trends are more significant.
Oceans cover 71% of Earth and they contain 99.93% of the thermal energy (“heat”) on the surface. Here we define the Earth’s surface as everything between the sea floor to the top of the atmosphere, ~22km. The land is considered below the surface here, we only include the atmosphere, lakes and rivers as part of the surface. The calculation of surface heat storage, and the necessary references, are detailed in this spreadsheet. As an illustration of the huge impact of the oceans, we should consider that Earth’s oceans contain more thermal energy than exists on the surface and in the atmosphere of Venus, where the temperature is 464°C or 867°F. In fact, Earth’s oceans contain four times more thermal energy than the atmosphere of Venus, yet the oceans have an average temperature of less than 5°C. A spreadsheet containing this calculation and the necessary references can be downloaded here.
We still do not have accurate information on the entire ocean, but we do have a lot more than in 2016, more than half the ocean volume is below 3,000 meters. CSIRO has a nice 2009 dataset of temperature data to 5,500 meters here (Ridgeway, Dunn, & Wilken, 2002). The University of Hamburg has multi-year data to 6500 meters here. The CSIRO NetCDF files opened easily, and we can work with their data, even though it only covers one year. Figure 1 is the average global CSIRO ocean temperature from the surface to 5,500 meters.

Figure 1. CSIRO 2009 global average temperature from the surface to 5,500 meters. Data source: CSIRO.
The temperature drops to a minimum of 1°C at ~4,250 meters and then begins to increase. The distribution of temperature at 4,500 meters is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. CSIRO ocean temperature at 4,500 meters. The white areas on the map are shallower than 4,500 meters.
Signs of the thermohaline circulation can be seen in these temperatures. It is still unclear how often the ocean water completely overturns. By overturning, we mean the amount of time required for downwelling surface water to make a completely deep-water circuit and then come back to the surface. This process probably takes at least 1,000 years. It is the major long-term heat exchange process on the surface of the Earth. Thus, when the Earth is receiving more thermal energy from the Sun, or CO2 or whatever is causing warming, it takes a thousand years or longer for it to circulate through the oceans. Figure 3 is a map showing the paths the water takes through the deep ocean.

Figure 3. The major paths deep water takes as it moves from the surface into the deep ocean and then emerges a thousand or more years later. Notice Antarctica is in the center of the map. This is because all the oceans only meet in the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica. Source: By Avsa – Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0.
As we can see in Figure 3, surface water dives into the deep ocean in the North Atlantic and in the Southern Ocean. It then begins to travel around the world, through all the oceans. It upwells mostly in the in the Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean, and in the Pacific. Because deep water moves out of the Atlantic, but mostly upwells in the other oceans, the Atlantic has a slightly lower sea level than the other oceans. Also see (Reid, 1961). Upwelling deep water is more widespread than downwelling. This NASA web page contains a good discussion and animation of the thermohaline circulation.
Figure 2 shows some mixed temperatures in the Southern Atlantic, next to South American and Southern Africa, this suggests some upwelling might be taking place there. But most upwelling appears to be in the Pacific, Southern, and Indian Oceans.
Discussion and Error
Unfortunately, good data on ocean temperature only goes back to 2004. The data we have suggests that the oceans are warming at a rate of 0.4°C per century. However, the ocean cycle-time is over 1,000 years and the record is only 15 years, so this is very speculative. However, if the oceans are truly only warming at a rate of 0.4°C per century, it seems very unlikely that the speculation about rapid and dangerous warming of the atmosphere is anything to worry about.
The Jamstec (Hosoda, Ohira, & Nakamura, 2008) grid, which we’ve used for the shallower (< 2,000 m) portion of our analysis provides us with an estimate of error. It is an estimate of spatial error, which can also be called gridding error. In other words, do we have enough data to make the map accurately? Figure 4 is a map of this error by year and depth.

Figure 4. Jamstec gridding error in degrees C. Data source: Jamstec.
As we can see in Figure 4, the error in 2001 was quite high until a depth of 1400 meters or so was reached. By 2004, depths below 1,000 meters were OK. As Figure 1 shows, depths shallower than 1,000 meters are highly variable and high errors are expected. These shallower waters interact with surface weather, especially in the so-called “mixed layer.” The mixed layer is a shallow zone where turbulence has caused a near constant temperature from the top to the bottom of the layer. The thickness of the mixed layer varies by season and area, but averages about 60 meters. The mixed layer temperature reflects, in a complex fashion, the surface temperature of the previous few weeks.
In our view, the attempts to deduce the magnitude and rate of atmospheric warming using only sea-surface and atmospheric temperature measurements is foolish and doomed to fail. The true “control knob” of long-term temperature change is the oceans. They regulate the surface temperatures through their enormous heat capacity. The mixed layer alone has over 22 times the heat capacity of the whole atmosphere to 22 km. The regulation of atmospheric temperatures by the oceans also gives us a lot of time to determine if global warming is truly a threat. Currently, we only have about fifteen years of ocean temperature data, but in fifteen more years we will have data over a “climatic” period. If the ocean warming trend in 2035 is still less than one degree per century, we have very little to worry about.
I used R to do the calculations plotted in the figures, but Excel to make the graphs. If you want to check the details of my calculations, you can download my CSIRO R source code here.
None of this is in my new book Politics and Climate Change: A History but buy it anyway.
You can download the bibliography here.
Mass of Earth’s oceans is about 1.35 x 10^18 tonnes.
Mass of Venus’ atmosphere is around 4.8 x 10^17 tonnes.
Ordered your book
Thanks for the interesting posts
Keep up the fight against the climate insane and for science
That’s a whole bunch of calories or BTUs or whatever.
I did a back of the envelope calculation that an ocean warming of 0.1°C would be enough to explain the modern increase in atmospheric CO2. (however I am not a chemist)
One of the things that surprised me about the above linked story is that otherwise clueful people don’t understand the difference between the mixed layer of the ocean and the depths, which is where most of the water is.
Andy “Willie” Mays:
Has there ever been a scientific experiment that replicated all the different ocean surface temperature measurement methodologies by measuring the ocean in the same place at the same time?
Hard to believe wood buckets, with mercury thermometers, would have the same measurements as Argo floats.
The wood (or canvas) buckets would bring up water from different depths.
The sailor might stop to smoke a cigarette before measuring the water.
The engine cooling water measurements would be from different depths, with different ships.
Not to mention the government bureaucrats compiling the statistics can’t be trusted.
In my opinion, no “surface” temperature measurements have sufficient accuracy for real science.
UAH satellite temperature measurements may be useful, because the troposphere is where the greenhouse effect occurs, and is a consistent environment — so measuring there makes more sense than measuring on the planet’s surface and wild guessing numbers for where there are no surface thermometers.
I realize UAH has a small amount of wild guessing too — over the poles — but FAR less wild guessing than surface temperature “data”.
What are your thoughts on the utility of the Argo float data for estimating ocean temperatures? It seems better than nothing, but because they are constantly moving as they deep dive, the lack of spatial accuracy of those deep temperatures means they can only give a rough temperature gradient, not an accurate vertical profile for a fixed location in the ocean. Also because surface temperatures vary due to circulation and annual insolation, it seems they aren’t giving a very useful map of surface temperatures because they are constantly moving.
Thanks, Andy, good stuff. I particularly liked the book plug, “none of this is in my book but buy it anyway”. Unfortunately, I went to the link you provided. They provide a link to the data but it is dead. Do you have a live link to the data?
w.
Thanks Andy for the nice article, always good to get back to the ocean, that is where climate resides.
Alarmist narrative about increasing ocean temperatures typically gives zero context, implying the assumption – as always – of Edenic stasis and constant unchanging temperature before the “industrial era”.
It is obvious that this is not true. The literature is full of studies that show substantial variation in ocean temperatures over the Holocene including several periods with much warmer oceans than now, especially 6000 years ago.
Recent temperature changes without context are meaningless. Ocean temperatures are changing all the time.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2006PA001339
http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/9432/Andersson%20et%20al_Clim%20Past_2010.pdf?sequence=1
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011PA002117
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48446896/The_Medieval_Climate_Anomaly_and_Little_20160830-4045-ssnybi.pdf?1472586652=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_medieval_climate_anomaly_and_the_lit.pdf&Expires=1606585707&Signature=Q8nZKGklREPP4EIugJMtd0XbOStAfKITZKQ5auMRJ1zZ~u~T4y09WWvc74UDE8n7jChbcEf5aZ9bCEylZNgCQAmgM9oBe23KHH2R8nlNhPYYSXLAxDmc7CgMP~tuCfIMv8i625tNLEi~m1jD-E9vZ4xlic33WeTLAi9N2H6svUWeSE0agWfMIDAx31ID0hTxK52W21k~4z0CKaMufCaMC9CxJz5v34LQhI6h1LdR9~16tBEooZltPwJLPKmXljcg0xv1twY44d36loIsXPFVBGRQysT~6ZudUJeApBs2q4GKM5tzGHs8PJEcVdPM36N3pIZTu6oFqkrM5cnppupacw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Get yourself a bucket of water and a heat gun and try heating the water through the surface. the heat will not pass through due to surface tension. Anthropogenic climate change is utter nonsense.
Also, my understanding of statistics doesn’t allow for their claimed accuracy. There are currently about 4,000 ARGO floats. That’s one thermometer for every 35,400 square miles (92,200 sq. km.) of ocean, it’s only taking 36 readings per YEAR … and we know the average temperature of that area down to 200 metres with an accuracy of 0.3°C???
Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it … I’ve seen ocean water, deep ocean water, change temperature by 5°C within a horizontal distance of a couple hundred metres. No way that you can get that kind of accuracy with 36 temperature measurements per year over a 35,000 square mile area. Heck, at best that’s one measurement per year per thousand squre miles … not buying it.
w.
Thanks for this thought provoking post Andy.
I still struggle to accept that averaging temps over such vast areas and depths has any real world useful application though.
Mass of Earth’s oceans:
1347000000000000000000 kg
Energy required to warm oceans by 0.4 K over 100 years:
2252884440000000000000000 J
The solar energy incident upon the earth over 100 years:
510000000000000000000000000 J
The solar energy incident upon the oceans over 100 years:
362100000000000000000000000 J
Solar energy incident upon the oceans over 100 years to warm it by 0.4 K translates to:
713895999700000 W
The climate alarmists claim an energy imbalance of 0.47 W / m^2.
Earth’s oceans cover ~362145775049000 m^2.
0.47 W / m^2 would give 170208514273030 W.
713895999700000 W to warm the oceans by 0.4 K
170208514273030 W energy imbalance
Either the climate alarmists have grossly overestimated ocean warming (which is highly likely), or they’ve grossly underestimated the energy imbalance (which is less likely). Either way, their numbers don’t work and I don’t believe them, nor can I believe they’ve not done these simple calculations to determine whether their blather is even in the ballpark.
I would like to see the error estimate for that 0.4C/century warming of the ocean.
As you say, we only have good data going back to 2004 (good is not the same thing as being adequate, which we still don’t have)
0.4 /century works out to 0.04/decade or about 0.06 for 16 years. None of the probes being used are accurate to that level.
There’s a tango between insolation and geothermal that makes ocean circulation possible. You can’t do it all merely from the top. Think about it.
The oceans could boil and egg. The glaciers are being worn down to the size of the poor kid’s sad little pencil stub. The Arctic is barely bigger than a circle k icee slushy.
But it doesn’t show up in the tidal gauges. Evidently all that heat and water raises the water level everywhere except at the 1000+ tidal gauges around the world.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling
They have already started adjusting the Argo data because it was showing a cooling bias. Their bias found some bias…after adjustments it still showed cooling, defying their bias, but showing less bias.
It’s the ocean , stupid! What stands out right away is how dismally short our data span is to draw ANY conclusions whatsoever. As stated it is clear that runaway warming is another laughable hypothesis. On top of the other myriad reasons like; manmade co2 is not the climate control knob. Our long term temperature record and ice cores have conclusively shown that.
Who knew? I don’t know if this has any effect on ocean temps but geologists say there is water in the earth’s mantle equal to the volume of the oceans….it is like 200 miles down and is in the form of ions in rocks. Also, there is a large biological movement in the oceans daily….the lantern fish population which is like 65% of the animal biomass in the oceans do a daily migration from like 4000 feet down during the day to 200 feet at night.
Wave breaking will mix surface water with lower, cooler layers. If there is something reducing that mixing then presumably the surface will be warmer, as will be the atmosphere.
https://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html
(When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
JF
There are signs of deep ocean cooling in some parts of the world:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/03/15/somethings-stirring-in-a-deep-atlantic-trench/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/widespread-signals-of-southern-hemisphere-ocean-cooling-as-well-as-the-amoc/
This is imprecise language. The word “regulation” should be replaced with the word “damping”.
The mass of water does not “regulate”. It provides thermal inertia. It slows changes.
Regulation is the control of energy uptake and release. The regulating factor is the transition of water to ice. Sea ice formation provides the prime regulator on heat loss changes. It operates at a precise temperature and is a powerful control. Only a metre or two of sea ice causes a dramatic reduction in heat loss from the surface.
Ice also regulates in the atmosphere above an ocean surface. Ice in the atmosphere provides a reflective layer that reduces surface insolation. When the precipitable water level exceeds 38mm the atmosphere goes into daily cloud burst mode. This results in persistent thick cloud that is highly reflective. The ocean surface can cool under the midday sun beneath this dense cloud. Cloud burst becomes persistent above an open sea surface at 27C and increases to the extent that the SST can never exceed 32C. This is a powerful regulating process that limits the heat input to oceans.
The temperature “regulating” processes of the oceans only involve the top 100m or so because the mixing below a hot surface is quite slow and IR absorption high; meaning low penetration. The temperature regulation works mostly independently of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Looking for net ocean heating is a fool’s errand. It cannot happen over decades or even centuries. Even significant perturbations due to events such as volcanic eruptions are ironed out in short time by the powerful feedback mechanisms.
If you see temperature trends other than zero over a few decades then look for the measurement errors. Earth’s thermostat is set very precisely by the transition of water to sea ice on the surface and water vapour to cloud in the atmosphere.
The fact that alarmists claim CO2 is driving a runaway warming effect in Venus just proves their argument that CO2 is doing nothing other than feeding plants on Earth.
Andy,
“ The data we have suggests that the oceans are warming at the rate of 0.4C per Century.”
Do the Argo buoys support this figure?
Does the Argo site give any warming figure? Does NOAA or NCDC?
I have looked at argo.net and have had difficulty in pinning down the obvious question, “how much have the buoys showed the ocean has warmed since the inception of the Argo buoys in 2004/2005?”
Too simplistic?
The site tells us that the Oceans have warmed by x Zettajoules over the period but this is not very enlightening to the reader.
I have read the 0.04C figure in a number of posts here.
A little history.
In June 2009, 4 scientists led by the late Robert Carter put three questions to the climate scientists representing the then Climate Minister in Australia,Penny Wong in what are the Fielding- Wong exchanges, available in full online, mainly addressing the “pause”or “hiatus”from 1998-2008.
One response was to say what is discussed here, namely that the ocean not the atmosphere is the true gauge of global warming.
Professor Carter pointed out that while true, this was virtually the first time this claim had been highlighted.
While the various IPCC Assessment Reports mentioned in some paragraphs and footnotes Ocean Warming, the Reports concentrated on atmospheric warming to an extraordinary extent.
They talked of almost nothing else year in and year out.
To summarise, the public would be astonished to be told the world’s energy system is only warming at a glacially slow 0.04C per century in the major gauge.
If the temperature of the oceans is lower than the atmosphere at surface, can the heat in the ocean ever make the atmosphere warmer? I would assume not because of the first law of thermodynamics.
There are mentions above of spatial error as when an interpolation is done between sparse data points with an aim to estimate values in the untested parts of a shape. This is a common problem in the estimation of the grade and disposition of ore in a deposit that has been drilled and assayed, with plenty of space between the drill holes.
There are sophisticated ways to estimate this spatial error, for example when looking at ocean temperatures measured by Argo floats. Here I contend that one can never measure this error in any meaningful way. The contention arises from the several times I have seen where it is possible to measure the error in an ore deposit, by mining it and increasing the resolution enormously. With a lot of earth science work, there is no equivalent of mining, so a reconciliation is not possible because the target is shifting in time and space. There were several times when the ore body turned out to be richer than was estimated from the drilling, because of pockets of rich ore between the drill holes. Conversely, some mines have failed to live up to their interpolated grades. There is a compromise here, with the cost of more drilling at the start offset by the bet or the chance that good or bad pockets will be missed.
The ore example is a strong one because the grades can vary over a wide range of richness, whereas ocean temperatures do not have a history of pockets sitting among the probe locations. However, in principle arguments apply and thus there is the contention that one cannot, at times, get a satisfactory answer out of the statistics of interpolation and assessment of uncertainty.
Geoff S
Quotation: “By overturning, we mean the amount of time required for downwelling surface water to make a completely deep-water circuit and then come back to the surface. This process probably takes at least 1000 years”.
I have comments on this issue. The most well-known ocean current is the Gulf current from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean which has a speed of about 4 km per hour. It means that the Gulf Current flows in about three months from Key West to the Arctic ocean. This huge water mass cannot disappear, but it continues as then Labrador current and the East Greenland Current. These currents join and flow to the South as the Canaries Current.
Because the water mass of the Canaries Current is about the same as the Gulf current, the time from the Arctic Ocean to the Equator should be months, not centuries. Temperature changes because of ocean current changes are very difficult to estimate.