Claim: World’s Ocean Is Losing Its Memory Under Global Warming

Peer-Reviewed Publication


Global map of declining ocean memory

Using future projections from the latest generation of Earth System Models, a recent study published in Science Advances found that most of the world’s ocean is steadily losing its year-to-year memory under global warming. 

Compared with the fast weather fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slowly varying ocean exhibits strong persistence, or “memory”, meaning the ocean temperature tomorrow is likely to look a lot like it does today, with only slight changes. As a result, ocean memory is often used for predicting ocean conditions. 

Ocean memory decline is found as a collective response across the climate models to human-induced warming. As greenhouse-gas concentrations continue to rise, such memory decline will become increasingly evident.

“We discovered this phenomenon by examining the similarity in ocean surface temperature from one year to the next as a simple metric for ocean memory,” said Hui Shi, lead author and researcher at the Farallon Institute in Petaluma, California. “It’s almost as if the ocean is developing amnesia.” 

Ocean memory is found to be related to the thickness of the uppermost layer of the ocean, known as the mixed layer. Deeper mixed layers have greater heat content, which confers more thermal inertia that translates into memory. However, the mixed layer over most oceans will become shallower in response to continued anthropogenic warming, resulting in a decline in ocean memory. 

“Other processes, such as changes in ocean currents and changes in the energy exchange between the atmosphere and ocean, also contribute to changes in ocean memory, but the shoaling of the mixed layer depth and resulting memory decline happens in all regions of the globe, and this makes it an important factor to consider for future climate predictions,” said Robert Jnglin Wills, a research scientist at University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and co-author of the research.

Along with ocean memory decline, the thinning mixed layer is also found to increase the random fluctuations of the sea surface temperature. As a result, although the ocean will not become much more variable from one year to the next in the future, the fraction of helpful signals for prediction largely reduces. 

“Reduced ocean memory together with increased random fluctuations suggest intrinsic changes in the system and new challenges in prediction under warming,” said Fei-Fei Jin, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, and co-author of the research.

Ocean memory loss doesn’t just impact the prediction of physical variables, but could also influence the way we manage sensitive marine ecosystems. 

“Reduced memory means less time in advance for a forecast to be made. This could hinder our ability to predict and prepare for ocean change including marine heatwaves, which are known to have caused sudden and pronounced changes in ocean ecosystems around the world,” said Michael Jacox, a research scientist at NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Monterey, California, and co-author of the research. 

In fisheries management, the biological parameters used for stock assessment are estimated assuming a stable environment represented by the recent past. Reduced ocean memory might render such estimation inaccurate and calls for new approaches in ecosystem-based fisheries management to include real-time ocean monitoring and other efforts alike. Ocean memory decline also likely exerts impacts on populations of biological resources. Depending on whether the species are adapted to constant or more variable environmental conditions, future changes in their population can be better estimated and predicted by taking ocean memory loss into consideration. 

Besides ocean prediction, forecasting land-based impacts on temperature, precipitation as well as extreme events might also be affected by ocean memory decline due to their dependence on the persistence of sea surface temperature as a predictability source. As ocean memory continues to decline, researchers will likely be challenged to search for alternative predictors for skillful predictions.

The research is a collaboration among scientists at:
●    Farallon Institute 
●    University of Hawaii at Manoa
●    University of Washington 
●    NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center
●    NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory 
●    University of Arizona 
●    NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center


Science Advances




Data/statistical analysis


Not applicable


Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century




The authors declare that they have no competing interests

From EurekAlert!

1.3 21 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 8, 2022 10:08 am

” ….. human-induced warming.”
Link to proof, please.

Reply to  Oldseadog
May 8, 2022 11:12 am

There isn’t any, as you well know.

Reply to  Oldseadog
May 8, 2022 10:09 pm

You need to trust these people, they’re high-priests scientists

Richard Page
May 8, 2022 10:11 am

Thermal inertia does not “translate to memory” – it’s all thermal inertia. This is what happens when a bunch of stoned hippies take a pseudo-science course and anthropomorphise the planet as some sort of ‘goddess’.

Last edited 12 days ago by Richard Page
Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
May 8, 2022 10:22 am

And this just in from another YouReekAlot! article…

Climate Change has Reduced Joe Biden’s memory to a series of events he made up in 1973.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 8, 2022 5:39 pm

CO2 causes Old Timers disease. Obviously.

Reply to  Richard Page
May 8, 2022 10:47 am

Seems like it’s more like diarrhea than amnesia.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 5:35 am

After 4.6BY a little Salinity senility is to be expected

Last edited 11 days ago by Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 9, 2022 10:21 am


Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 8:33 am

Including diarrhea of the mouth…

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Richard Page
May 8, 2022 1:19 pm

In a comment on Willis’ post yesterday about CET, I naively asked if he knew a way to shift the
conversation from global temps to oceanic thermal heat content & transference which I think are
much more important & revealing metrics. Within a day, a post shows how the The Team™ lied
about ocean data & gave a basic concept a meaningless woke name. That’s the same old stuff,
different day! I forgot whatever they touch will be used as propaganda.There’s no way around it! 🙁

Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 8, 2022 3:17 pm

Speaking of propaganda, this from Seth Goebbelstein is so moronic, it made me almost wet my pants laughing:

Kit P
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 8, 2022 6:33 pm

Saw the headline earlier today but did not read the article until your comment. I was hoping for a good laugh or at least and interesting read.

I did have trouble following the logic of the journalist,

Reply to  Kit P
May 8, 2022 11:10 pm

I couldn’t make it past the first few paragraphs. The scientist had a lot of bad luck and tragedies just before the pandemic and somehow it segued to her being people’s climate therapist – how to stay positive when faced with all the damage.

Here’s a better way than trusting a climate bedwetter activist with making one feel better about the environment – do some actual research and digging to find out what is really going on and stop listening to the muck raising media.

I believe it was Mark Twain that said something like, if you don’t read the newspaper you will be uniformed, and if you do read the newspaper you will be misinformed.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Richard Page
May 8, 2022 1:28 pm

Now, now now! We all know that AGW magically changes the laws of physics and properties of water heat sinks!! Come on, man, get with the picture!!

(do I really need to add the “/snark” tag? )

global warming Gore Rescues Drowning Polar Bear this is not to say I condone poisoning polar bears by feeding toxic food .jpg
Bryan A
Reply to  Rational Db8
May 8, 2022 5:41 pm

They would have been even better if the bears started out skinny

Rational Db8
Reply to  Bryan A
May 8, 2022 5:58 pm

I think part of the point is that the bears are doing just fine as it is. :0)

Bryan A
Reply to  Rational Db8
May 8, 2022 9:04 pm

OK then how about another panel with the bears puking “That was Rancid”

Last edited 11 days ago by Bryan A
Rational Db8
Reply to  Bryan A
May 9, 2022 12:13 am

Works for me!! <g>

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
May 8, 2022 10:13 am

The article begins with, “Using future projections from the latest generation of Earth System Models…”

That’s as far as anyone needs to read to know the study is computer-generated nonsense.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 8, 2022 10:35 am

Good of them to do that as it saves lots of time.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 8, 2022 12:56 pm

Hey, it’s “the latest generation” of models! Not like the older generation models that were no good for anything. 😉

joe x
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 8, 2022 1:17 pm

i saw noticed that too bob, but i still skimmed through the article just to punish my self.

Reply to  joe x
May 8, 2022 4:16 pm

It was blessedly short.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 9, 2022 2:13 am

If we know that the recent 3My have been the coldest of the last 200My can we presume that oceans didn’t have memory most of the time. But if you have a colder climate like between two interglacials temperature fluctuations become even bigger. What does that do with the ocean memory. What about La Nina El Nino events ?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 9, 2022 8:36 am

The problem is that it’s models all the way down…No reality.

May 8, 2022 10:20 am

Well, this nonsense is easily forgotten

G Mawer
Reply to  fretslider
May 8, 2022 11:06 am

Good One !!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fretslider
May 8, 2022 11:07 am

That’s a bit of a problem, these forecasts are what’s remembered. Particularly in this sort of case when a rebuttal can take weeks or months and is not published in the gutter press,

A lot of predictions by the Met Office have been published in national and local press in the UK over the last two or three weeks, it’s yet to materialise in Derby. But what people remember is that a heatwave was forecast so it must have happened. I’m not a conspiracy theorist so I put it down to ineptitude of the MO and incompetence of the press and Gullibility of a large section of the public

James Watson
May 8, 2022 10:28 am

So they found the effect by examining models of predicted future ocean warming rather than looking at actual ocean conditions over the past 40 years…. it’s as if they knew they could only find what they were looking for in models.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  James Watson
May 8, 2022 10:53 am

See my comment below, just posted.

Reply to  James Watson
May 9, 2022 9:52 am

Well the actual article does point to research that indicated a drop of about 5% over 6 decades in however they measured stratification.

But that study only found that extra stratification by going to a depth of 2000m instead of the 200m that they said was previously used.

I found that fishy, since the layer these scientists are panicking about is only 50m, and it was only a change of .9% per decade and most of the changes in the more recent decades – when temperatures have been relatively flat since after the 1998 El Nino.

The stratification seems mostly determined by salinity differences, and while the Arctic reduction in sea ice extent added lots of fresh water, that extent seems stabilized now, and anyhuge differences eventually even themselves out with continued mixing.

I think this is going to be another case of climate scientists noticing a symptom and turning it into a disease. Salinity and stratification leading to… something instead of being just a transition to a new equilibrium level; CO2 levels increasing to set the world on fire, instead of just being the result of coming out of the Little Ice Age since the depth of the cold in 1700.

Gregory Woods
May 8, 2022 10:29 am

We need to ‘woke up’ the oceans, then…

May 8, 2022 10:30 am

Oh dear, the fetch forgot what it was doing. How will we ever survive? And its all your fault, just like everything else. Please send money so we can play with our computers, we are a little short. Thank you.

May 8, 2022 10:37 am

Papers like this serve to demonstrate how dramatic has been the separation between “climate science” and reality.

May 8, 2022 10:39 am

Government funded by the big three modeling agencies NOAA, NSF and DOE. Buying scares.

“Funding: This work was supported by Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections Program grant NA19OAR4310290 (Climate Program Office, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to H.S., M.G.-R., W.J.S., and R.R.R.; U.S. National Science Foundation grant AGS-1813611 (F.-F.J.); U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-SC0005110 (F.-F.J.); U.S. National Science Foundation grant AGS-1929775 (R.C.J.W.); and CIRES Postdoctoral Visiting Fellowship (D.J.A.)”

Richard Brown
May 8, 2022 10:45 am

We need to start chucking blueberries and avocados into the ocean. They are supposed to be good for the memory…..

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Richard Brown
May 8, 2022 12:57 pm

Nothing short of virgins will do.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2022 1:44 pm

Good luck finding one over 15 ! ( Blame “progressive teachers” for teaching anything goes sex ed to grade 5 students ! )

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Marcus
May 9, 2022 9:05 am

Madonna? She’s “like” a virgin …

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2022 7:38 pm

Virgins? We’re doomed!

Chris Nisbet
May 8, 2022 10:48 am

Hands up who thinks this story gives the impression this ‘memory loss’ in the oceans has already begun.
“Declining”, “is steadily”, “is developing” “We discovered this phenomenon”, all imply that something is already happening.

Do honest scientists try to mislead people?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
May 8, 2022 10:56 am

These dishonest scientists definitely tried to mislead. ARGO sees nothing of what they assert is already happening. Just checked. Reference in comment following.

Rud Istvan
May 8, 2022 10:50 am


I thought, what does ARGO observe? Found a perfect on point paper in GRL at 2017GL073426 titled ‘An ARGO mixed layer climatology’. Built from about 1250000 separate ARGO profiles from 2003 to 2017, and computed two ways. The complete database with computed mixed layer depths (MLD) is available at

Turns out the MLD has a strong seasonal component—shallower in summer. Hence the climatology. Turns out that it also varieties geographically (deeper in the turbulent Southern ocean) and annually. But based on the paper’s database, and Fig. 3b for the Labrador Sea, there is NO general shallowing caused by global warming over the period to 2017. NONE.

It is only in climate models of what the future might be. Another bogey man lurking under the warmunist bed.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 8, 2022 12:43 pm

Yes I’m hoping that Musk introduces a tag for tweets about “modeled” research, something like –


Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 2:56 pm

Mr. I’d like to agree with you except that this is the same B.S. playing out in the same way, over and over with just a different title – so it’s got to be: “***Limited Imagination Applied***”

Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 10:06 pm

I prefer the lawyers line – ” Objection, speculative”

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 9:57 am

Of course they didn’t look at the paper you cited (btw the link doesn’t work) but found another that does, sort of (.9% increase in stratification per DECADE and they had to change the methodology, by looking down to a depth of 2000m, to find even that much.)

Rick Ray Robinson
May 8, 2022 10:51 am

So decades of ocean measurements that did not show this “memory loss” suddenly are negated because models. Based on an assumed climate sensitivity to CO2 that is likely far higher than the actual climate response. Every one of these stories just reads like bullshit being peddled in order to get another round of funding.

May 8, 2022 10:54 am

Just once I’d like to see claims resulting from investigative facts instead of models. We’ve created a monster by allowing modeling to take the place of science and be taken for truth.

Reply to  markl
May 8, 2022 11:12 am

The map is not the territory.

Richard Page
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 8, 2022 2:58 pm

That’s not a map, it’s a doodle that someone coloured in using crayons.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  markl
May 8, 2022 9:08 pm

Modeling has a place in science. The problem is that the current generation of scientists has elevated the importance of poorly understood physical systems, as expressed in computer models, above the importance of empirical observations. More data might be able to improve the models, but everyone seems to be too busy cranking out predictions from the existing models to gather the much needed data.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 9, 2022 4:21 am

It is like the computer games they play. Baseball, basketball, fishing, first person shooters, you name it. They become real in the imagination part of the brain. Therefore, computer weather models are no different – they become real too.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 9, 2022 10:47 am

Verified, validated models have a place in science and engineering.

H. D. Hoese
May 8, 2022 10:59 am

 “Ocean memory loss doesn’t just impact the prediction of physical variables, but could also influence the way we manage sensitive marine ecosystems. ” I guess that without a memory, literacy is not possible. Didn’t teach such courses when I took and even taught a little oceanography. Learn something new every day!

Special Issue: Future Seas 2030: Pathways to Sustainability
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries &nbsp;
Ocean literacy experiential learning.  “When we dance the ocean, does it hear us Equity of our future oceans: practices and outcomes in marine science research” Trying to outdo the water striders out there? Ocean & atmosphere boundary layers are quite a place, easier and maybe more fun to study other aspects.

From the paper, first in abstract– “This global decline in ocean memory is predominantly driven by shoaling of the upper-ocean mixed layer depth in response to global surface warming, while thermodynamic and dynamic feedbacks can contribute substantially regionally.”

First line in Introduction– “More than two-thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean,….”
In Results–“The 1-year autocorrelation of annual mean SST anomalies [hereafter referred to as A(1)] is used as a simple metric of the year-to-year ocean memory (Materials and Methods). The SST anomalies are defined as deviation from the long-term trends (Materials and Methods) ….. Just as the shoaling of the MLD is the main reason for the decline in ocean memory, it is also the reason for the increase in noise variance (Materials and Methods).” MLDs (Mixed layer depth) SST (Sea surface temperature for those of you that didn’t know about the size of the ocean).

Materials and Methods “ We use CMIP6 output of SST, MLD, surface latent heat flux, surface sensible heat flux, and surface radiative fluxes from the preindustrial control simulations, historical simulations, and various SSP (65) scenarios, including SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5. We selected a total of 20 CMIP6 models…..”  

I suppose that we had some memory about noise variation back then, and they did show in their references that there actually were some thermodynamic measurements made in the last millennium. I also learned about another NOAA program (Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections ). They need to go to sea and measure some real (not so sensitive and autocorrelated) thermoclines!

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 9, 2022 10:49 am

SSP5-8.5. No wonder.

Age of Reason
May 8, 2022 11:04 am

Hard to square this research with NASA and other research suggesting ocean overturning take about 1000 years….

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Age of Reason
May 8, 2022 4:59 pm

Gentle correction. You confound two different things.

The deep ocean overturning is how long it takes very cold and very salty from sea ice formation exudate (thus heavy) polar winter water sinking to the ocean bottom to resurface as an upwelling somewhere. Estimates vary, but your 1000 years is a good central estimate (estimated range 1200-800).

The mixed surface layer depth isn’t polar except in high summer. It is the euphotic surface (sunlight penetrating biologically relevant photosynthesis zone, condition dependent about 80 to no more than 150 meters), plus whatever might lie just below in similar temperature and salinity conditions due to wave action turbulence mixing. So inherently deeper in the southern ocean ‘roaring forties’ and ‘screaming 50s’.

May 8, 2022 11:23 am

Projections of projections of inferred images in the signs.

John Shotsky
May 8, 2022 11:46 am

So, when the oceans don’t do as the computer models ‘predict’ it is the ocean’s fault? I think the memory problem is with those to tout these failed models.

May 8, 2022 11:52 am

The ocean is losing it’s memory

In this case I think this will be difficult to trace back to the primary cause.

Do the most obvious and important things first.
They need to do a multi-variate study to determine if simple old age is the primary cause.
Simple aging is far and away the most common cause of memory loss.

(So much for YouReekAlerts)

Flash Chemtrail
Reply to  TonyL
May 8, 2022 2:25 pm

The ocean is losing it’s memory

Yeeeehaaawwwww! – Jethro Bodine Esquire

May 8, 2022 11:59 am

… and these dummies are university academics?!
Oceans do not have memory, they have thermal capacity, I would be tempted to call it ‘thermal hysteresis’ (the phenomenon in which the value of a physical property lags behind changes in the effect causing it, whereby down cycle may not follow rate path of the preceding up cycle, e.g. oceans may not cool and heat at the same rate).
Also oceans might be subject to long term natural cycles, such as centenary or millennial solar cycles, the millennium+ long great conveyor belt cycle, AMO and PDO cycles whose causes are not entirely certain. I believe there also some long term tidal cycles that might affect temperature behaviour of costal waters, i.e. the whole panoply of cyclomania, you might say (: .

Reply to  Vuk
May 8, 2022 12:50 pm

The simpler explanation is that so called ‘memory’ will remain in nature, and this work demonstrates a limitation in gcms.

Reply to  Vuk
May 9, 2022 11:01 am

I agree, and I want to add that scientists will generate bogus predictions when trying to simplify a process like the oceans’ thermal capacity by pretending it’s memory – exactly the same bs they are doing by treating the lapse rate affected by CO2 levels as “downwelling radiation” or “CO2 forcing” – unjustified simplification, especially if they persist in prophesying a century in the future.

Mike Smith
May 8, 2022 12:11 pm

Our planet is 4.543 billion years old. Of course, it’s suffering from little dementia.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike Smith
May 8, 2022 9:12 pm

Is that petite dementia versus grand dementia?

Gavin Hardy
May 8, 2022 12:35 pm

“Reduced ocean memory results in shorter lead times of skillful persistence-based predictions …”?

What on Earth are these fools going on about?

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2022 12:56 pm

Is it dementia or senility? April fool was 5 weeks ago.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2022 3:43 pm

Sorry, April Fools Day was cancelled this year because nothing could equal the crazy crap the “liberal left” has put us through in the last two years ! MAGA !

May 8, 2022 12:57 pm

“using projections from models…” <—- not science

May 8, 2022 1:03 pm

What a sorry excuse for science! How can the science community continue to allow trash like this to be published without a vigorous challenge?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Bob
May 8, 2022 1:20 pm

It is the climate science community. They publish trash all the time; it’s their M.O. Because otherwise they got nothing after 40 years of ignominiously failed predictions.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 8, 2022 2:08 pm

Rud, I really appreciate that WUWT posts these papers otherwise I would never know about them, but I swear it makes me think I am reading National Enquirer.

Last edited 12 days ago by Bob
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Bob
May 8, 2022 3:03 pm

Don’t knock National Enquirer, first saw the discovery of the Megamouth Shark there. Picture on cover I seem to remember by the grocery checkout.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 8, 2022 3:55 pm

So next month is the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) in Stockholm.

Which gave birth exactly 20 years later (1992) to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro.

Wouldn’t it be timely and fitting for a talented writer to “celebrate” the 50th anniversary of dud climate predictions next month by compiling and publishing a list of all these failures, and a prediction of what further climate prediction failures we can look forward to for the next decade or so?


May 8, 2022 1:04 pm

Someone watched Moana too many times. The ocean has memory…

Richard Page
Reply to  stinkerp
May 8, 2022 3:03 pm

That’s what happens when morons use critical race theory instead of science.

Bruce Cobb
May 8, 2022 1:20 pm

The oceans are pretty old so some memory loss is to be expected.

May 8, 2022 1:34 pm

“Using future projections from the latest generation of Earth System Models”

Models that have the brain power of Brandon !

Joao Martins
May 8, 2022 1:58 pm

” World’s Ocean Is Losing Its Memory Under Global Warming ”
Phosphorus is essential for not losing memory.

Shoki Kaneda
May 8, 2022 2:15 pm

That’s better than “climate scientists” losing their minds over ~1°C warming.

Old Cocky
May 8, 2022 2:19 pm

The full paper must have been too long, so it’s been split into parts. They publish the models first, to be followed by the observations and comparison.

May 8, 2022 2:55 pm

‘member when the oceans did this?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Matthew Bergin
May 8, 2022 3:14 pm

Male bovine excrement, by the ton.

May 8, 2022 7:39 pm

How absolutely stupid can a person be …a non sentient entity has no memory to lose or use . Anthropology run amuck.
No wonder only the terminal ignorant fall for this crap.

Clyde Spencer
May 8, 2022 8:58 pm

It strikes me that alarmists must have brain storming events to see if they can invent any more possible negative effects by humans on Earth. As the more obvious ones are trotted out the remaining ones become even more of a stretch. Referring to auto-correlation as “memory” would seem to be an attempt to appeal to empathy by anthropomorphizing the oceans. Are they getting desperate?

May 8, 2022 9:38 pm

Using future projections from the latest generation of Earth System Models

Translation: Using prophecy from the latest made-up GIGO junk…

Alt translation: Ze misty, crystal ball iz clearing unt zose who haf passed wish to speak wit you.

Mr David Guy-Johnson
May 8, 2022 10:20 pm

Rarely have I read such a load of rubbish

May 9, 2022 4:42 am

while talking about the uppermost layer of the ocean, they state “Deeper mixed layers have greater heat content”
I need to learn something here as I thought it got colder (less heat content) lower down

Old Cocky
Reply to  jono1066
May 9, 2022 2:04 pm

Lower temperatures, but greater volume.

May 9, 2022 6:42 am

Once again, “scientists” who wrote this article confuse the output of theoretical climate with physical evidence. They write as if they had discovered some facts about the real world.

Instead, they have only added to quantification of their theories. Only real world measurements can confirm or deny theory or projections of theory. Scientists used to understand this.

The language in the article should be only in the “if….,then….” mode, not the “We find…” mode.

This article is not science.

May 9, 2022 7:54 am

My gawd, this sounds exactly like something a so-called “scientist” from a non-science background would say, turning the oceans into mental patients who are suffering alzheimers.

A real scientist would never resort to using such goggledygook bullshit terms.

The real scientific terms include concepts like the specific heat capacity of liquid water, and the comparative mass of the oceans to the mass of the atmosphere. And the various laws of thermodynamics.

Last edited 11 days ago by Duane
Reply to  Duane
May 9, 2022 8:41 am

….that’s all too difficult. It involves math.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
May 9, 2022 9:02 am

Using future projections from the latest generation of Earth System Models, a recent study published in Science Advances found that most of the world’s ocean is steadily losing its year-to-year memory under global warming.

Sounds like an issue with the models; I don’t see anywhere claiming this behavior occurs in the real oceans. We’ve had 3,000 operational ARGO buoys since late 2007. You’d think if there was a trend in year-to-year temperature you could find it in almost 15 years of reasonably comprehensive data. Instead, they examine model outputs.

If models are all you have then we can discuss what they purport to show. But if you ignore real data to consider only models, you might as well be reading Tarot cards.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 9, 2022 9:40 am

Title of above article:

“Claim: World’s Ocean Is Losing Its Memory Under Global Warming”

Heck, that’s nothing . . . most of industrialized Western nations, the IPCC, the Biden administration, and the MSM have lost their collective minds over Global Warming.

May 9, 2022 10:20 am

they made a big mistake! They used nice cool blue on there graphic, it doesnt look menacing like a nice dark red does.

Robert of Ottawa
May 9, 2022 3:59 pm

Ocean losing its memory? Research grant seekers losing their minds.

%d bloggers like this: