False Alarm: New Study Finds Global Ocean Warmed By 0.02°C From 1994-2013, With Cooling Below 3600m

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

A new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s reveals that (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for 1994-2013 was a modest 0.02°C.  In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, undermining claims that the modern era change is unusual or unprecedented. 

Image Source: Wunsch, 2018

Global Warming = Ocean Warming

According to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmosphere accounts for only 1% of the heat energy change in the Earth system, whereas the 0-2000 meter layer of the ocean is where 93% of the globe’s overall heat/temperature change has occurred in recent decades.

Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010 (high confidence). The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.” (IPCC, 2013)

Deep Ocean Temperatures Cooling Since The 1990s

The IPCC chooses to exclude the layer of the ocean below 2000 meters in their energy change inventories, even though about “52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m” (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014). Perhaps the reason the deep ocean is disregarded is because recent analysis has revealed that the deep oceans below 2000 meters have been cooling since 1993.

A very weak long-term [1993-2011] cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth [2000 m], including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.”  (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)

Image Source: (Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014)

Because of the cooling (thermal “retraction”) occurring below 2000 meters, the deep ocean removes a very uncertain -0.13 mm per year from global sea level change estimates (Llovel et al., 2014).

“Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise.” (Llovel et al., 2014)

Top-To-Bottom Global Ocean Temps Have Changed By 0.02°C Since 1994…Large Regions Have Undergone Cooling

In a new paper, Harvard oceanographer Carl Wunsch provides an analysis of the overall temperature, salinity, and surface elevation changes in the global ocean for the 20 years between 1994-2013.  He focuses on the profound uncertainties in the data analysis, and cautions that we still have much to learn about the ocean system.

Wunsch provides a novel assessment of the temperature data for the whole ocean (0-5000 m), as the record doesn’t end at the 2000 meter depth.

The results reveals that the global ocean has been cooling in some regions and warming in others for the last few decades, with an overall net change of 0.02°C (~0.001° per year) during 1994-2013.


Wunsch, 2018

Towards determining uncertainties in global oceanic

mean values of heat, salt, and surface elevation

“Lower-bounds on uncertainties in oceanic data and a model are calculated for the 20-year time means and their temporal evolution for oceanic temperature, salinity, and sea surface height, during the data-dense interval 1994–2013. … Trends [in temperature] are estimated as […] 0.0011 ±  0.0001 °C/y, with formal 2-standard deviation uncertainties. The temperature change corresponds to a 20-year average ocean heating rate of  0.48 ±0.1 W/m2 of which 0.1 W/m2 arises from the geothermal forcing. … The mean slope implies a change over 20 years [1994-2013] of 0.0213 ± 0.0014 °C.”

Image Source: Wunsch, 2018

2016 Paper Revealed Oceans Naturally Warm At Several Times The Magnitude/Rate Of Recent Decades

According to the IPCC, the global ocean temperature changed by just 0.015°C per decade at depths of 700 m in the 40 years between 1971-2010.

“In the upper 75 m of the ocean, the global average warming trend has been 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13]°C per decade over this time [1971-2010]. That trend generally lessens from the surface to mid-depth, reducing to about 0.04°C per decade by 200 m, and to less than 0.02°C per decade by 500 m. … decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m.” (IPCC, 2013)

In contrast to these modern ocean temperature changes, a Geophysical Research Letters paper from 2016 revealed  that during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed by more than 2°C in a span of just 200 years 0.1°C per decade — at the deeper 0-1000 m layer (Bova et al., 2016). This is several times the rate and magnitude the ocean is reported to have warmed during 1971-2010 (0.015°C per decade) at the shallower depth of 700 m.

In fact, (Bova et al., 2016) concluded that deep ocean temperature changes for the last 200 years are apparently so insignificant they are below the detection limit”.

“The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O [temperature proxy] over the past 200 years is below the detection limitbut δ18O signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings >2 °C within 200 years.” (Bova et al., 2016)

Comparing past “natural” changes to the recent changes in ocean temperature therefore would undermine claims that the modern version of “global warming” is unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable.

Instead, perhaps we are merely witnessing “natural variability”.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

79 responses to “False Alarm: New Study Finds Global Ocean Warmed By 0.02°C From 1994-2013, With Cooling Below 3600m”

  1. spike55

    “an overall net change of 0.02°C ”

    Oh No, we are all like lobsters in a pot !! 😉

  2. SebastianH

    In contrast to these modern ocean temperature changes, a Geophysical Research Letters paper from 2016 revealed that during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed by more than 2°C in a span of just 200 years — 0.1°C per decade — at the deeper 0-1000 m layer (Bova et al., 2016). This is several times the rate and magnitude the ocean is reported to have warmed during 1971-2010 (0.015°C per decade) at the shallower depth of 700 m.

    Leaving everything else aside, but that is not what the Bova paper is saying. Read the quote you chose to publish more closely. It’s a proxy taken from a depth of 1000 m . I can’t find the full paper, so maybe you can add how many locations in 1000 m depth they investigated?

    I hope you can see the difference between an average temperature increase of a layer 1000 m deep and a temperature variation at a certain depth in possibly one location only.

    Perhaps the reason the deep ocean is disregarded is because recent analysis has revealed that the deep oceans below 2000 meters have been cooling since 1993.

    From the linked paper: “Of that total amount, approximately 10% is the contribution from below 2000 m”

    Comparing past “natural” changes to the recent changes in ocean temperature therefore would undermine claims that the modern version of “global warming” is unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable.

    No it doesn’t, that is just a pseudoskeptic fantasy …

    Instead, perhaps we are merely witnessing “natural variability”.

    [-snip, you’ve neem getting overly snarky lately. Please moderate it. -PG]

    1. spike55

      “I hope you can see the difference between an average temperature increase of a layer 1000 m deep “

      Yep, we have established that its less than 0.1ºC in 55 years… Like the little squiggle on this graph.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/bbiicubg3/OHC_rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png

      We have also established that there is absolutely no evidence of any human cause for this very slight warming.

      1. SebastianH

        Except the Rosenthal OHC graph doesn’t display the average temperature of a 1000 m deep layer of the ocean. Someday you will understand … until then I will LOL pretty hard whenever I read something like this from you.

        1. spike55

          NOAA puts the average temperature change as just about 0.1C

          .. Just like in the graph.

          Your manic DENIAL of actual data is quite hilarious,

          … but nowhere near as HILARIOUS as your headless chook routine in avoiding answering two simple questions.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          I guess even headless chooks need to beg for attention.

        2. spike55

          Again, it is NOTED BY EVERYONE, that you are totally unable to provide any evidence of human cause for this TINY amount of warming.

          EVERYONE is LOL at your child-like ineptitude and headless chook evasions of producing any evidence.

    2. spike55

      “pseudoskeptic fantasy”

      What is this pseudo-skeptic crap you keep coming up with?

      Someone who PRETENDS to be sceptical, but is actually a deeply brain-hosed AGW apostle, only reacting to things that don’t support the AGW mantra ??

      You certainly live in a fantasy, anti-science world, without a single self-thinking cell in your body.

      Your mind is perpetually trapped in the Land of Make-Believe, without any chance of escape.

      1. SebastianH

        [-snip, you’ve neem getting overly snarky lately. Please moderate it. -PG]

        I’d appreciate it if you would moderate your “hounds” too … thank you.

        1. spike55

          Cry me a river..

          poor seb.

          bitter, sour, crock-tears.. always.

    3. markx

      SebastionH,
      ‘Sceptical’ is a pretty well defined and simple word.
      You can be skeptical of ANY statement or position, whether it is true or not.
      The invention of words such as ‘pseudo sceptic’ surel reeks of some sort of righteous desperation.

      sceptical
      ˈskɛptɪk(ə)l/Submit
      adjective
      adjective: skeptical
      1.
      not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
      “the public were deeply sceptical about some of the proposals”
      synonyms: dubious, doubtful, having reservations, taking something with a pinch of salt, doubting, questioning;

      1. spike55

        “reeks of some sort of righteous desperation. “

        You NAILED seb to a “t”

        I doubt you could come up with a more APT take on his lack of character.

        A self-righteous, attention seeking prat.

  3. David Nunn

    School boy error to think that oceanic heat capacity doesn’t dominate climate compared to 400ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed David Nunn,

      However as our host puts it —
      Comparing past “natural” changes to the recent changes in ocean temperature therefore would undermine claims that the modern version of “global warming” is unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable.

      Instead, perhaps we are merely witnessing “natural variability”.

      We skeptics, who are constantly on the the look for observed data that shows otherwise, have yet to successfully find any legitimate evidence. Certainly there is no direct evidence that humans have had much of an impact on the climate, the climate has and will impact humans.

      This ocean cycling is, by all accounts been what’s it’s ever been, unless someone knows where there is observed evidence to the contrary. In fact oceans, just like the atmosphere, appears to be perfectly within natural bounds, and all this man-made climate change nonsense does not stack-up.

      The UN-IPCC mandate to find ‘manmade climate change’ (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is just another corrupt UN inspired scurrilous shakedown operation. An operation to give fake legitimacy to the idea that humans are guilty of changing the climate for the worse, when there is very, very little evidence (maybe none) to support it. A fake legitimacy that the UN requires to lay claims to being the final arbiter and World Government authority in science, economics, and law.

  4. Ocean – Air heat and water exchange is the climate flywheel | Naval War changes Climate

    […] False Alarm: New Study Finds Global Ocean Warmed By 0.02°C From 1994-2013, With Cooling Below 3600m By Kenneth Richard on 20. July […]

  5. Gus

    Since the 3,800 ARGO ocean temperature monitoring devices have only been in operation for about 15 or so years, trying to draw and meaningful trends or conclusions from the data so far received seems to be a bit premature.

    1. Yonason

      True, but they are helpful in pointing out that modelers and data adjusters are most likely wrong. That in and of itself is a very important result.

  6. Kurt in Switzerland

    Sounds to me like the behavior of the oceans, deep and shallow, is poorly understood, certainly in any quantitative sense. What constitutes ‘natural’ and what constitutes ‘man-made’ ocean heat content variation, in individual basins and globally? Can anyone separate the two?

    1. David Nunn

      Kurt, just the scale of the oceans versus potential human influence emphasises that the small empirically observered changes are indeed natural. There is no carbon dioxide correlation.

    2. MrZ

      On that subject but perhaps because my ignorance…
      Looks to me as if the sea level rise calculations always consider a pillar. 0-20m heats x, 20-200m heats y and 200-700m heats z. deeper than 700 is almost 0 so skip it…
      Based on that pillar you can apply fancy formulas including pressure, temperature and salt levels. The calculated pillar than result in a possible sea level rise of Xmm. That figure might look scary at first but the rise will level out over shallower waters before reaching shore. The “rise” will actually decrease dramatically as it spreads out.
      Anybody knows of a paper that instead consider increased volume spread on the 361 100 000 km2 the oceans occupies.

      Thank you

      1. SebastianH

        The calculated rise from thermal expansion is already an average rise for the whole ocean surface.

        Can you explain why you think it “levels out over shallower waters”? You aren’t doing the Mörner thing of imagining water mountains, right?

        1. spike55

          Poor seb , doesn’t understand ANYTHING about thermal expansion.

          No sign of any acceleration of sea level rise at coastal tide gauges.

          In fact, looks like deceleration..

          https://s19.postimg.cc/vbe9vvo4z/Sea_level_slows_Puls_1.jpg

          … so where is the thermal expansion from 0.1C warming in 50 or so years, seb?

        2. spike55

          Its great that you realise there is something VERY WRONG with the satellite data, seb

          These slightly larger trends and accelerations ONLY EXIST in the middle of the oceans, NOT at coastal sites.

          Would love to LAUGH at your explanation of how that works. Please provide such an explanation.

          And also provide any REAL evidence you have of human cause.

          OR..

          .. you could adopt your usual hilarious cowardly headless chook evasion routine.

        3. MrZ

          I was actually asking if you could provide some pointer for my education.

  7. David Nunn

    Correction *observed*

  8. Luke

    OHC increase occurs when total downwelling radiation ( LW or SW or both) increases. This will reflect some combination of change in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) through a change in albedo and a change in bulk atmospheric emissivity, i.e. the greenhouse effect. The time series behaviour of the ratio of the mean surface flux to OLR points to the former (albedo decrease) as the driver of the surface flux increase. Meanwhile, the greenhouse effect has in fact weakened slightly since 1980, as the increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases may be offset by a decrease in atmospheric water vapor. Such decrease is seen in the ISCCP Total Water Vapor data from the D2 dataset, but not fully supported by NVAP-M data. Albedo decrease has caused an increase in ASR of around 3 W/m2 since 1980. Because DWLIR has a significant component (around 80 W/m2) of atmosphere absorbed solar reemitted as LW, this results in an increase in DWLIR not caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

    1. spike55

      No, OHC DOES NOT increase from downwelling LW radiation.

      1. SebastianH

        Wow, you got something right. OHC indeed increases when there is less upwelling LW radiation, not because the downwelling part increases … as we all know the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface (usually) it just prevents the heat from escaping to space.

        1. spike55

          “it just prevents the heat from escaping to space.”

          That is a load of UNSUBSTANTIATED FANTASY and BS.

          You know you have ZERO evidence for that baseless ANTI-SCIENCE supposition.

          CO2 has ZERO effect on slowing heat transfer.

          Its radiative properties make for faster transfer of energy than conduction and convection.

        2. spike55

          It really is quite BIZARRE that you haven’t figured out that if there is any increase in DLWLR, that would cause increased evaporation, and convection.

          And we all KNOW from measurements that evaporation COOLS the ocean surfaces, and that CONVECTION is a great COOLING mechanism.

          But wilful ignorance was always your thing.

        3. spike55

          “OHC indeed increases when there is less upwelling LW radiation”

          Now that’s just DUMB

          A rise in OHC causes an INCREASE in upwelling LW radiation.

          basic radiative physics..

          no, NOT seb fantasy fizzics.

          1. John Brown

            Mr. Spike is correct!

    2. tom0mason

      Yes Luke all theory and not observed evidence that CO2 has done anything.

    3. SebastianH

      Meanwhile, the greenhouse effect has in fact weakened slightly since 1980, as the increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases may be offset by a decrease in atmospheric water vapor.

      You should tell the expert that they are missing this. What are the odds? Someone from this comment section should always be asked before publishing major new findings in climate science since they are obviously more knowledgeable in the field …

      1. spike55

        Maybe seb could publish something proving CO2 warming using empirical data instead of anti-science fantasy?

        Still that EVIDENCE is TOTALLY LACKING

        Radiative GHE has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

        Poor little trollette STILL can’t answer two simple questions.

        Same old headless chook evasion routine every time. 🙂

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  9. Luke

    Observed evidence? Upward surface flux exceeds absorbed solar flux, so something is going on. That is the greenhouse effect, the atmospheric amplification of surface temperature. Gravito-thermalists such as N&Zeller would have us believe that gravity and pressure are responsible for this effect. As far as I can tell, andyspike55 is also a fan of this theory. I used to think there may something in it, but now I don’t accept gravitothermalism at all. It is only by fully embracing mainstream greenhouse theory that I can demonstrate the increase in upward surface flux was caused by an albedo change and not an enhanced greenhouse effect. You should try it andyspike55!

    1. tom0mason

      Yes luke, you are still just quoting theory!
      “Upward surface flux exceeds absorbed solar flux, so something is going on.”
      Then follows BLATHER! NOT Observed science! No, just sophistry wrapped guesswork!
      YOU HAVE NOTHING!
      Now get your head out of your nether regions and understand that as long as cAGW advocates can not show CO2 warms the atmosphere, all you have is theory! As long as there is no real understanding of how clouds work Your THEORY is trash! As long as you can not explain why historically CO2/temperatures do not track, you are full of just theory.

      A theory that the UN-IPCC wishes to use to destroy progress, destroy western life.

      1. spike55

        DWLWR cannot warm the ocean,

        NOR can it slow down the lost of energy from the oceans.

        It is all a load of anti-science nonsense, and has NEVER been measured or observed anywhere on this planet or any other.

    2. Yonason

      Yeah, if one is sloppy and ignores conservation of energy…otherwise no.
      https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2014/03/agw-theory-back-radiation-insignificant.html

    3. spike55

      Not my fault is you can’t comprehend basic physics.

      DENIAL of the pressure/gravity based thermal gradient and its compressional effect on surface temperatures is basically a denial of observed physics.

      Feel free to fully embrace whatever you want to.

      Does not mean you are correct.

      There is NO EVIDENCE that enhanced CO does anything except enhance plant growth.

  10. Luke

    Yes Ken, your last sentence is the same thing as the quote, absorbed solar (ASR) being controlled by albedo, that is my position also.
    But not so fast with ocean heat. ASR is not sufficient to heat the oceans to their present temperature. Just not enough watts going in averaged over the globe to maintain that temperature. Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature – that is the greenhouse effect, more or less.
    Base of atmosphere and earth surface temperature are nominally the same, variations of course exist and net heat flow will be from warmer to cooler, whichever that may be.
    I think N & Z are also wrong about the other planetary surface temperatures too. All of the other planetary surface temps can be explained with a greenhouse effect as well.

    1. spike55

      “Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature “

      Only if you are ignorant about the effect of UV penetration into oceans, and do not comprehend the gravity thermal mechanisms.

      Then you just have to make crap up.

    2. spike55

      “Atmospheric downward emission is therefore required to explain the surface temperature – that is the greenhouse effect, more or less.”

      And its a load of bollocks.

      The radiative GHE has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter.

      The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.

      The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.

      The gravity thermal effect allows the near surface atmosphere to retain the energy that gives our current surface temperature. That energy comes ONLY from the SUN (and maybe some internal volcanic activity)

  11. Luke

    Ken, thanks for the responses. When I treat the atmosphere and surface as radiative grey bodies, consideration of depth of penetration of radiation is not important – be it microns or tens of meters, it doesnt matter. The radiation is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted, nothing else happens. DWLIR is observable, and of sufficient magnitude to fill the energy gap required to maintain sea surface temperatures – see Wild et al. (2013, 2015), provides an excellent summary. There is a global network of observation points measuring DWLR from the surface too.

    1. spike55

      “When I treat the atmosphere and surface as radiative grey bodies”

      You show yourself as a mindless twit.

      A grey body is one where α, ρ and τ are uniform for all wavelengths.

      The atmosphere and the surface, especially water, most definitely ARE NOT.

      A grey body is defined as a body with constant emissivity over all wavelengths and temperatures.

      Water most definitely DOES NOT have constant emissivity over all wavelengths, not by a LONG shot.

      So yes, it DOES matter how much penetration there into the oceans

      Shortwave penetrates and warms the oceans.

      Long wave DOES NOT.

      End of story.

  12. Luke

    Measurements of ocean emissivity are around 0.984, refer to Konda et al. 1994 J Oceanography. They also describe the temperature variation of the skin layer, the one which andyspike55 mistakenly likes as proof that DWLR cools the ocean. In fact the opposite is true: without DWLR, the oceans would be frozen solid because ASR is not powerful enough to maintain, on average, without DWLR, a liquid ocean. Forget the miniscule difference in the skin layer temperature.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close