Skip to content

Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

October 10, 2018
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

How often have we heard the claim that the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans?

Back in 2000, leading oceanographer, Robert Stevenson, debunked that theory:

 

image

Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2000, Dr. James Baker, Administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced that since the late 1940s, there “has been warming to a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.” “In each ocean basin, substantial temperature changes are occurring at much deeper depths than we previously thought,” Dr. Baker said, as indicated by research conducted at NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory. He was referring to a paper published in Science magazine that day, prepared by Sydney Levitus, John Antonov, Timothy Boyer, and Cathy Stephens, of the NOAA Center.

For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place. Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.

Science news writer Richard A. Kerr, in his “promo” article to get everyone excited about the new NOAA paper, asserts that “The ocean-induced delay in global warming also suggests to some climatologists that future temperature increases will be toward the top end of the models’ range of prediction.”

To complete the surge of enthusiasm, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues: “Now the ocean-warming data imply that climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is not at the low end of the spectrum.” He, and some others of United Nations fame, lean toward a climate sensitivity of about 3°C or a bit higher, by the end of the century—the next century, that is.

 http://21sci-tech.com/articles/ocean.html

 

Stevenson went on to detail the Levitus study, and then gave his thoughts:

 

So, How Does This Play in Hanalei?
(Considering that Hanalei, Hawaii is just down the hill from where I write, I thought I’d inject a little local color into my comments.) It sometimes seems as if I’m living in a “time-warp” in which some people, and scientists, are unaware that rational life existed before their birth—or before they got out of the sixth grade. Yet, we marine scientists did not enter the second half of the 20th century without a fair bit of understanding of the thermal ocean.

For example, Prof. Hubert H. Lamb, the premier European climatologist of the 20th century,1 wrote in 1977 that “there has been a general warming of sea temperatures, by 0.5-1.0°C, from 1880 to 1965, defined from widely scattered points around the oceans of the world.” Lamb went on to say that “This general warming is known from the Gulf of Alaska, the eastern Pacific Ocean, the western Indian Ocean, the eastern and northern North Atlantic Ocean, and the tropics of both the Atlantic and Indian oceans.”

Within those 85 years, Professor Lamb noted that there were “minima in the periods of 1915-1925 and again between 1940 and 1950”—meaning that the rate of temperature rise went to zero, but temperatures did not decline to levels lower than they had already reached. For the Atlantic Ocean, 55°N to 40°S, the waters were cooler by 0.8°C to 1.0°C in 1780-1850 than in 1950. Now, the temperatures that Professor Lamb provides were certainly not taken as precisely, nor were they as many as we have acquired in the past half century. But, their existence is not trivial…..

 

Sources of 20th Century Ocean Temperatures
I learned to deploy Nansen water bottles and reversing thermometers for deep-sea sampling in 1949. I spent the rest of the subsequent decade seagoing, for the most. I can’t remember how many bottle casts I made, or how many bathythermographs I deployed. There had to be thousands in the waters off coastal California. Other students and post-docs were doing the same farther offshore in the eastern Pacific, from the E.W. Scripps. In the westernmost Atlantic, a similar cadre worked from the Atlantis.

In the 1960s, more ships were out at sea: from Fisheries Laboratories, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now NOAA), and research institutions at Scripps (La Jolla, Calif.), Woods Hole (Massachusetts), Miami, and Texas A&M (in the Gulf of Mexico). The British sailed the new Discovery, the Germans the new Meteor, and there were small ships sailing from Denmark, Japan, and France. Many cruises were dedicated to the geophysics of the sea floor, where deep-ocean casts for water and temperatures were few and far between.

Surface water samples were taken routinely, however, with buckets from the deck and the ship’s engine-water intake valve. Most of the thermometers were calibrated into 1/4-degrees Fahrenheit. They came from the U.S. Navy. Galvanized iron buckets were preferred, mainly because they lasted longer than the wood and canvas. But, they had the disadvantage of cooling quickly in the winds, so that the temperature readings needed to be taken quickly. I would guess that any bucket-temperature measurement that was closer to the actual temperature by better than 0.5° was an accident, or a good guess. But then, no one ever knew whether or not it was good or bad. Everyone always considered whatever reading was made to be precise, and they still do today. The archived data used by Levitus, and a plethora of other oceanographers, were taken by me, and a whole cadre of students, post-docs, and seagoing technicians around the world. Those of us who obtained the data, are not going to be snowed by the claims of the great precision of “historical data found stored in some musty archives.”…

 

How the Oceans Get Warm
Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.

Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.

The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 meters.

The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.

The concept proposed in some predictive models is that any anomalous heat in the mixed layer of the ocean (the upper 100 meters) might be lost to the deep ocean. There have been a number of studies in which this process has been addressed (Nakamura 1997; Tanimoto 1993; Trenberth 1994; Watanabi 1994; and White 1998). It is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 to 160 meters, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density discontinuity) in the global ocean. Below these depths, temperature fluctuations become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.

Consequently, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.

Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea

Return to top
What about Thermohaline Circulation?
The fact that the surface ocean can become denser than the underlying waters, thereby sinking to depths of “density equilibrium,” has been discussed since surveys of the physical ocean began in the second half of the 19th century. Certainly the concept was known before HMS Challenger sailed, in 1873, on its famous expedition. One of the multitude of suggestions made by members of the Royal Society at that time was to investigate the “over-turning of surface waters caused by density differences.”

Thermohaline circulation is responsible for the formation of the bottom-water masses in the world’s oceans: the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) originates basically in the region of the Labrador Sea; the Weddell Sea is the source of the deep-water in the circumpolar Southern Ocean; and the Pacific Deep Water originates in the Ross Sea. In many other places in the oceans, and seas, as well, surface waters are carried into the depths by thermohaline circulation.

So, it is not surprising that those modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

It does not happen!

The primary physical factor in determining the density of sea water is the temperature (Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1943). In the open ocean, top or bottom, salinity differences are measured in a few parts per thousand. Thermohaline circulation takes place where the surface waters become colder than the waters beneath. The large vertical movements occur in polar seas, where accelerated radiation makes the surface waters greatly colder than the deeper waters.

In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9°C, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying “thermal lag” is going to take place. It is clear that there’ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter….

 

So, where does the NOAA paper fit?

I was rather eager to read the article by Syd Levitus, and his colleagues. I was somewhat put-off by the headlines about “missing warming,” but I figured that was just the usual hype by the media.

Yet, here I sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, surrounded by papers (peer-reviewed, I guess I should add) which conclude:

    (1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;

    (2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasn’t. That must mean that a suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the “greenhouse” impetus for warming; implying, therefore,

    (3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2; indicating

    (4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048°C/decade, that is, about 0.5°C this century— the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting

    (5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5°C in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);

    (6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,

    (7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.

I guess what I’m really wondering is “Why did Syd Levitus, and his associates, write their paper in the first place?”

 http://21sci-tech.com/articles/ocean.html

 

Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. A member of the scientific advisory board of 21st Century, he is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.

 

Eighteen years on, and nobody has managed to prove him wrong.

Advertisements
19 Comments
  1. October 10, 2018 6:52 pm

    This is known as a “Negative Trenberth Event”, after Kevin Trenberth who postulated the deep, missing heat. The concept is that if observations are not supporting theory, the observations must be incomplete, inadequate or wrong.

    A Negative TE is where observations are not found; a Positive TE, where observations are noted where none are expected or in direct opposition to predictions from theory.

    Balloon and satellite observations are Positive TEs. The survival of Arctic summer sea ice and increase in no change in hurricane frquencies are Negative TEs.

    CAGW is filled with them, more each year. The Kavanagh debacle ended for the Democrats as a Negative TE equivalent: the non-finding of a crime proved, to them, the FBI didn’t look in the right places. Note that the Kavanaugh NTE was the result of a conspiracy no different from the non-acceptance of a CO2 crisis by the general world: here it is fossil-fuel interests hiding the truth

  2. Phillip Bratby permalink
    October 10, 2018 7:12 pm

    It’s obvious to anybody with a basic knowledge of physics:

    1 The ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.

    2 Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters. The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases.

    3 Infrared radiation penetrates a few millimeters into the ocean and it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.

    Anybody who claims ocean warming is due to increased CO2 is either a charlatan or an ignoramus (or in the case of those at the BBC, both)..

    • HotScot permalink
      October 10, 2018 11:35 pm

      Phillip

      And anyone who relies on ocean temperature data from the 1850’s to the 1970’s, when satellites were first used, and then later, when Argo Buoys were used is just pissing in the wind.

      The vast majority of SST’s taken from ships would have been along well plied trade routes and for the western world, most of it directly between the USA and Europe.

      The southern ocean would barely have been touched and much of the seas around the Arctic, similarly, although the northern reaches of Europe, Russia and north America would have been better understood.

      Then there’s the nature of temperature measurement. For the most part in the mid to late 19th Century, probably accomplished with a deck hand or cabin boy chucking a bucket overboard to scoop up a gallon or so of water which would have been tested by a mercury thermometer, by a deck hand who couldn’t be arsed anyway, and probably didn’t chuck the bucket overboard in the first place but just reported the same temperature as yesterday, or a bit warmer, or a bit colder.

      It simply beggars belief that any faith in historic temperature records is maintained when current day temperature readings are subject to dispute at every stage.

      And as far as I can gather, the data from Argo buoys isn’t providing fodder for the alarmists because they are not coming up with the lavish predictions of temperature rise they expected, and wanted. So it’s kind of gone quiet as far as they are concerned.

      As much faith as I have in the human race, little of it is reserved for institutional data recording. And I think my scepticism has been largely justified by the recent audit of the HadCRUT4 records which appear far from fit for purpose.

  3. October 11, 2018 12:15 am

    Does anyone know how I can get NOTALOT. to my e-mail in box.

  4. October 11, 2018 2:45 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. October 11, 2018 2:59 am

    HI PAUL, HAVE YOU DONE OTHER POSTS ON OCEAN HEAT CONTENT / OCEAN WARMING? IF SO MAY I PLEASE HAVE THOSE LINKS? THANKS IN ADVANCE.

  6. Jack Adams permalink
    October 11, 2018 4:15 am

    nyahnyahnyahnyah. I’m not hearing you since I believe my Saviour and Redeemer, Al Gore who said we all must believe and proved it with the pictures of the drowning polar bears. So stop trying to present us with “evidence” that my Saviour and Redeemer is wrong. Shame on you.

  7. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    October 11, 2018 4:19 am

    Stevenson thinks better than I do, but I have little argument with what he has written here. It was a breath of fresh air to re-read his work. Thank you for posting it.

    The preamble has a sentence that has worried me for years. “Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. ”

    I have never been able to work out why that heat feels a need to go to the atmosphere to haunt us. Why is the sea not its usual and logical home? What is the energy source that drives heat from ocean to atmosphere? I suppose that there is an answer, maybe derived from models, that relates to some Utopian equilibrium, or some forcing derived from TOA radiative imbalance, but I can’t put my finger on it.
    Can anyone help? Thanks Geoff.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      October 11, 2018 5:09 am

      Sun shines on the tropical ocean. Waters warm.
      Water evaporates, surface cooling.
      Water vapor rises, then cools.
      Gas condenses, releasing heat. Atmosphere warms.
      Latent heat.

    • October 11, 2018 5:10 am

      maybe not that it will come back to haunt us but that arbitrary shifting of missing heat to the oceans preserves the AGW climate mechanism which then continues to haunt us

    • dave permalink
      October 11, 2018 8:54 am

      “…heat feels a need to go to atmosphere…[?]”

      There is no mechanism. It is one-way traffic in the water by extremely slow conduction – downwards.

      End of story.

      Or rather, there is a mechanism, but it works on a time-scale of thousands of years*. The Ice Age will re-establish itself long before that half-degree warming, a thousand feet down, has any renewed influence on the surface.*

      As with a comet which comes close to us and then disappears, heat-energy will come back, somewhere, sometime; but we will be ‘one with Nineveh and Tyre.’

      The heat-energy capacity of the mixed layer of the ocean is forty times the heat-energy capacity of the atmosphere, and the heat-energy capacity of the entire ocean is one thousand, six hundred times greater than the capacity of the atmosphere.

      *During the Cretaceous the oceans were a uniform 15 C all the way down. At present most of the ocean is just above freezing. It has taken more than a Century for a quarter of the ocean to warm by half a degree. Thermal inertia! Surely, anybody can do the math and work out the time-scale?

      • nigel permalink
        October 11, 2018 9:09 am

        About 1/1000 th. of the deep ocean is returned to the surface each year by up-welling. Therefore 1/1000th of any ‘special stored heat’ is returned to us each year. Big deal!

      • roger permalink
        October 11, 2018 11:33 am

        And yet, last evening on Sky the newsreader was quick to inform us that hurricane Michael had rapidly intensified by feeding on the heat in the DEEP water beneath it’s track.
        Are the goal posts being moved yet again by the purveyors of fake news?

      • nigel permalink
        October 11, 2018 11:52 am

        “Are the goal posts being moved…by the purveyors…?”

        Probably not.

        They are – to put it simply – complete morons.

        The DEEP water (meaning a couple of hundred feet down) below a hurricane is COLD. Up-welling of this to the surface tends to KILL the hurricane.

  8. Athelstan permalink
    October 11, 2018 8:16 am

    Yuh and all goes to show, what goes on, on the surface isn’t the full picture.

    Furthermore, is that we still don’t really understand the marine conveyor the forces at work and the interaction of the planetary drivers,notably our Star and our Satellite even in relation to the geomagnetic core when it flips (as it does) and massive undersea ocean ridge, island arc tectonics, submarine volcanism et bloody cetera and what goes on under the ice in the Arctic ocean, we do understand though that the Oceans transfer heat – we’ve known about the North Atlantic drift for a long, long time. All further research is to be welcomed, and man quest to comprehend.

    But what I do know, it’s FA to do with Man Made CO2.

  9. October 11, 2018 10:20 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Well worth a read.

  10. dennisambler permalink
    October 11, 2018 2:12 pm

    An earlier piece from Dr Stevenson can be found here, with some interesting history of the whole charade:

    AN OCEANOGRAPHER LOOKS AT THE NON-SCIENCE OF “GLOBAL WARMING
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf

    A clearer text version but without images, is here, (from the top)
    http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/globwarm.htm#fig1

  11. October 11, 2018 4:46 pm

    Hopefully an idea presented at the Porto Conference will be on Youtube soon. It is called The Nile Climate Engine. It is an idea from ‘left field’, nothing to do with CO2 causing warming, but it looks at the effect of the reduction in evaporation into the Intertropical Convergence Zone following the building of the High Aswan Dam which reduced the Nile flooding – a big source of that evaporation. This looks as if it has affected the East African Waves with lower cloud densities reaching the Western Atlantic of the coast of West Africa particularly during summer, resulting in warmer summer seas in that area.

  12. Anthony Hills permalink
    October 12, 2018 4:15 pm

    I do not see any mention of the fact that we have removed about 60 million tons of sulphur dioxide annualy from the skies since 1980 which equals the warming effect of removing 4 large volcanoes emissions.
    This of course opens the skies to more solar energy to be stored in the oceans and released during warm cycles.
    China has reduced sulphur emissions by 75% in recent years equivalent to one large volcano. (23 million tonnes). Pinatubo was 15 million tonnes.
    Co2 has been a minor influence and measured at 1 watt per sq meter every 50 yrs.
    We need more science on how many watts sulphur removal has contributed to warming because going forward there are plans to remove a lot more sulphur from shipping fuels.
    So far this warming appears to be beneficial for the planets food production.
    A recent study found that agriculture declined during the Pinatubo eruption years, so cooling the world now might have negative consequenses with so many more mouths to feed since 1980.
    If the warming ever got dangerous it could be reversed by not removing sulphur from fuels, at the price of acid rain returning.
    The PDO and AMO ocean cycles will rule in the end as the most powerful influence.
    The recent LaNina has been weak, possibly from more sunshine owing to reduced pollution? Only time will tell.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: