Is global warming hiding underwater?

Feb 10, 2014
Credit: Hartmann, D.L., et al.

Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years. Climate scientists say this is not the end of global warming, but the result of a rearrangement in the energy flow of the climate system and, in particular, how the ocean stores heat.

Like flying thermometers, some satellites carry instruments that provide a global view of the surface temperature of oceans and seas. Measuring the sea-surface temperature is important for improving weather and ocean forecasting and change research.

Satellite and local readings show that sea-surface temperature has been rising rapidly since the 1970s, in line with the overall warming of our planet. But this increase has significantly slowed in the last 15 years.

In contrast, other variables such as increasing , rising sea levels and declining Arctic sea ice have not experienced the same reduction in trend and therefore demonstrate that Earth's climate continues to change.

Scientists have speculated that one of the causes of this 'plateau' in sea-surface temperature could be a change in the exchange of ocean water between warm, surface waters and cold, deep waters below 700 m – as if the warming is 'hiding' underwater. Temperature measurements at this depth cover a relatively short period.

But the warm water won't hide below the surface forever: scientists believe that it may re-emerge later or affect other climate indicators, such as sea level or ocean circulation.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Credit: ESA / Medspiration

ESA's Climate Change Initiative, or CCI, responds to the need for continuous data on the energy budget in our climate system to understand better the slowing increase in sea-surface temperature. Satellite readings enable the detection of real trends in climate.

"We can observe changes in sea-surface temperature from the 19th century onwards using millions of measurements gathered by voluntary observers at sea and by buoys that drift around the oceans," said Nick Rayner from the Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK.

"CCI is developing sea-surface temperature information from satellites that provides an independent assessment of these changes over the last few decades."  

Science leader for this project, Chris Merchant, says, "When comparing changes in global average sea-surface temperature from these two sources, we see they provide a consistent picture since 1996, when the most reliable satellite measurements began.

"We are now working on applying our methods to earlier satellites, in order to extend reliable satellite-based information back into the 1980s."

Nick Rayner adds: "That will allow us to combine, with increased confidence, the sea-surface temperature information from satellites with measurements gathered in the ocean, to build a better, more complete picture of past changes."

These topics, among others, were discussed this week during the CCI's Collocation Meeting at ESA's Centre for Earth Observation in Frascati, Italy.

ESA began monitoring sea-surface temperature in 1991 with the first Along-Track Scanning Radiometer on the ERS-1 satellite, followed by instruments on ERS-2 and Envisat.

ESA will continue observations of sea-surface with the upcoming Sentinel-3 mission, being developed for Europe's Copernicus programme.

Explore further: Nature can selectively buffer human-caused global warming

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Flying thermometers

Jul 13, 2012

Some satellites carry instruments that provide measurements of the surface temperature of oceans and seas – like a thermometer in the sky. Scientists met recently to review data from new satellite missions ...

2013 sixth hottest year, UN says (Update)

Feb 05, 2014

Last year tied for the sixth hottest on record, confirming that Earth's climate system is in the grip of warming that will affect generations to come, the UN's weather agency said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

NASA sees Genevieve squeezed between 3 tropical systems

1 hour ago

The resurrected Tropical Depression Genevieve appears squeezed between three other developing areas of low pressure. Satellite data from NOAA and NASA continue to show a lot of tropical activity in the Eastern ...

User comments : 21

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Skepticus_Rex
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2014
"CCI is developing sea-surface temperature information from satellites that provides an independent assessment of these changes over the last few decades."

The data from the ARGO network also is available. It started showing declining temperatures in the oceans. Not long afterward it was declared that the "problem" was that just about every single probe has materials errors in their construction. Thus, the probes all should be showing warming rather than cooling and therefore it must be materials errors that are recording data the opposite "direction" of what they should be recording.

Could warming be "hiding" in the oceans? Maybe. The Pacific Tradewinds are being blamed for the moment for the "hiatus" in global warming in another article in Nature Climate Change. Latif was laughed at and attacked for claiming that we were in for a one to two-decade cooling trend or a pause in warming for at least that long, followed by increased warming. We'll see.

Not so funny now, is it?
mosahlah
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2014
Yeah. It's hiding. Only scientists can see it. That's the ticket.
Free John Doe
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014
Whatever happened to scientific PROOF ?, it seems to me that these days people are too quick to use the latest data to support theory, changing the instruments results in a change in data which is then justified as evidence that the theory is correct ! I am not saying that the theory is wrong but to me it appears that the 1997 spike could be a function of change of instrumentation. NB: In an oscillating system if you increase the energy input without changing the frequency you will get a change in amplitude ie higher peaks AND lower troughs.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2014
Headline: Climate Scientists Discover Sentient Behavior in Natural Forces.

Global warming scientists have determined a sentient-like "behavior" to global warming. "It seems it only appears in places we do not measure it." states climate scientist Ima Phool. Ima continues, "We know the globe is warming, it's just a matter of tracking down that pesky heat." LOL

Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
lobdillj
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
From 1966 through 1995 I was a physicist working in the field of underwater acoustics. During this period the sound velocity profiles in the oceans of the world varied seasonally above the thermocline and not below. The US Navy has extensive data on this from all over the globe. This article does not go into this historical data, nor does it explain by what mechanism this change in energy transfer from surface to depths below 700m (about 2300 ft) could take place. In fact, only surface temperature history is discussed, and what happens in the water column is left to speculation.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2014
@Osteta
If I understand correctly you hypothesize global warming is (mostly) a radioactive decay issue interaction between soil, neutrinos & dark matter ?

Seems a stretch, given the facts
1. CO2 level rising
2. Known thermal properties of CO2 & conjunction with
3. Burning ~230,000 L of petrol each second, also raising H2O levels in the atmosphere

Then isnt it far more plausible as a more (occam's razor) appropriate probabilistic potential it's not likely nuclear but simply interactions of human activity & earth's response to the extra green house gasses & increased heat load ?

ie. In contrast, almost nothing is known about Dark Matter/neutrinos re radioactivity (enough change) so making a link between them seems probabilistically small & unclear.

In any case, isnt there far more heat generated by Potassium & Thorium far below soil & therefore the quanta of heat output from below would be much higher, it's evidentiary expression would be much more volcanic activity, does it factor ?
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
orti
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2014
"30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years"
plus
"1996, when the most reliable satellite measurements began"
Selective correlation doesn't equal proof, just another factoid.

"In contrast [to SST], other variables such as increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, rising sea levels and declining Arctic sea ice have not experienced the same reduction in trend and therefore demonstrate that Earth's climate continues to change."
Just another factoid.

But the IPCC is 95% certain of ... something.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
common people here have really very weak sense for what can be possible in physics and what not
How would you know Zephyr? As has been pointed out time and again to you, understanding the maths in physics is necessary to understand the physics, and you can't do the maths!

If anyone on here can be accused of having a "very weak sense of what can be possible in physics" it is YOU!
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
The sense is an instinctive stuff, it's not based on strictly deterministic rational reasoning commong from math blah blah blah ....
BS, but of course that is what you would answer, given you admit you can't do them.

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
The sense is an instinctive stuff, it's not based on strictly deterministic rational reasoning which is common in math analysis blah blah blah

@Osteta/zephir
and there is the reason that you cannot grasp modern physics. You are relying on gut instinct. This is also why you are an acolyte of Dense Aether whatever philosophy. There is no evidence to support your philosophy. Aether has been debunked for a century. It was also intuitive/instinctive.

At least now we can see WHY you cannot accept reality and you cling to outdated debunked science and conspiratorial claims

i'm with Maggnus on this: you cant do the maths so you poo-poo it and pick something that "sounds" reasonable (to you)
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
You can still do the testable predictions with it at the qualitative level.
Actually, no you can't. Well not and claim it describes the real world at least. There must, in the end, be a basis in fact (ie math Zephyr) failing which it is simply unproven (and mostly unfounded) conjecture.^
solar system will get flooded with neutrinos from some cloud of interstellar gas
see there you go getting all fantastical again. What cloud? How does a cool cloud emit neutrinos? Is it the green long-eared elves who steal beer from my backyard and dance naked in the moonlit interstellar medium? Oh no, wait, it must be the aether driven water ripples floating across the paddling elfish ducks!

The mystical word salad of Zephyr. Do you realize that if you had picked up a few physics books back when you first were told to, you would be an actual physicist by now? And just think - you would probably be leading the charge against your ridiculous theory! Hilarity indeed!
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
Even the pile of math of SUSY, string theory or epicycle model doesn't makes their underlying logics more valid. On the contrary - when the common sense is missing, then the whole theory becomes waste of time and effort - which is why I'm always starting with collecting the indicia and with development of nonformal logics of new model first


@osteta/nestle/zephir
there are two words that completely refute this statement of yours:

QUANTUM MECHANICS

there are a great number of things that dont make sense in QM without the maths
there are things that are not "intuitive"... you cant follow your "gut"
it doesnt use "common sense" although, if you follow the maths, it really DOES!

it is also the single most successful theory that we ever had

Oh no, wait, it must be the aether driven water ripples floating across the paddling elfish ducks!

@Maggnus
forgot the water bugs sitting on the waves/ripples!
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
Even the pile of math of SUSY, string theory or epicycle model doesn't makes their underlying logics more valid
Of course it does Zephyr, given they are based in reality (that means math again Zephyr!) To question their validity, you must show how they differ from reality. (That requires math Zephyr!). Even then, you won't show their logics to be invalid, given that they are based on real derivations of mathematical concepts, although you might be able to show they are incorrect (that would require math Zephyr!).

That YOU can't understand the logics behind the theories does not make those theories wrong Zephyr.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
A bastardization of his intent. Read the whole speech: http://www-histor...try.html
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
This is just the reason, why the Couder's experiments are ignored with mainstream

@zephir
and Couder himself said in that video that they can mimic "SOME" of the things of QM. Not all. And in that you should read: because we cannot replicate ALL of the QM weirdness, this is something that is neat, but just perhaps coincidental. It will take more experimentation.
This is NOT DEFINITIVE. And should be taken in such a manner.
This is why you have issues.
You see one thing, extrapolate what you wish from it, then claim definitive replication of your belief, or empirical data supporting you... when it is no such thing.
This is also exactly how the books explain some QM weirdness (see: the Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw)
They also use sand on a drum head which can mimic the Couder experiments in some areas too
all it means is that we are trying to understand
and eventually, i believe we will
bastardization of his intent

@Maggnus
THANK YOU
good point!
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
These two assumptions aren't logically consistent each other, as the testable presence of extradimensions would manifest itself just with violation of Lorentz symmetry.
That they are not logical with each other as we understand them now does not change the fact that they are logically consistent in and of themselves when taken individually. You take the unknown, present it as unknowable, and use that axiom to justify a meaningless posit that has absolutely nothing to back it other than YOUR view that it "seems right".

Whatever, Zephyr, nothing anyone says to you makes any difference. Its too bad, you have a keen mind and it is a waste that you never tried to apply it to dealing with the real issues in cosmology.

You have to admit, when even other quacks argue you don't know what you are talking about, there must be some problem with your ideas that you are not seeing. Your hubris is epic.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
The theorists and high-school teachers actually don't want to have quantum mechanics understandable for layman masses, because they would lost their informational monopoly regarding the formal descriptions

@zephir
personal conjecture not based upon facts OR reality
if they didnt want people to understand,
there would not be books like "Quantum Mechanics Demystified"
The teaching of quantum mechanics at schools is as good business as for example the Big Pharma lobby - and equally usefull for the real life

the teaching of SCIENCE is good business

the rest you wrote is pure drivel and conjecture without support of facts
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
Maybe they're saying it, but definitelly don't argue

@zephir
maybe... hard to argue with a hallucination
You cannot know, what I know about my stuff

1: you share with us
2: even YOU dont know what you are talking about
3: you usually cannot produce maths or links to reputable science sites for support making it all nonsense and drivel
this thread is about extraterrestrial models of global warming and so far I'm the only one, who is talking about it here. You should return to subject for to prove your stance at least

but YOU pulled stupid out of a hat with
You can still do the testable predictions with it at the qualitative level

etc, etc, etc
someone had to address the nonsense
now... if you want to return to the topic, please do
but keep the nonsense contained
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
@Osteta,
11 Feb 2014, I asked
..isnt there far more heat generated by Potassium & Thorium far below soil & therefore the quanta of heat output from below would be much higher, it's evidentiary expression would be much more volcanic activity...
I didn't get any response but, you did respond to other points, more or less, did you skip it ?

What is the situation with heat generated from known radioactive nuclei of Potassium & Thorium below crust which continue to generate great heat billions of years after forming ?

If your theory has credence, surely that heat generated from mantle/core below crust must be so much higher than smaller mass amounts of radioactive nuclei in mere 'soil' & this heat, having to 'go somewhere', would be expressed by a rather larger increase in volcanic activity ?

The maths of heat generated by your theory can be applied & integrated over the mantle's mass & known specific heats of lava at various depths, can you comment on that please ?
Nestle
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2014
I don't think, the thorium contributes to global warming, as it doesn't decay with weak force mediated mechanism, which is the one affected with neutrinos. On the other hand, the potassium could. By NASA the natural cycles to Earth's warming correlate with movement of liquid iron in Earth's outer core. The increased heating of Earth core would increase tectonic activity, frequency of earthquake and tsunamis. For example, by this article the earthquakes became five times more energetic, then before.The rising geovolcanic activity is attributed to imbalance of Earth mantle in consequence of global warming (ice caps melting), but IMO its origin may be different, as it doesn't manifest only at the tectonic plates affected with ice melting.
Nestle
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2014
would be expressed by a rather larger increase in volcanic activity
It should 1, 2, 3, but the speed of heat transfer is still low due to low speed of magma circulation inside of Earth mantle. We are facing the rather fast reversal of geomagnetic poles instead. Another paper claims the heat is real, but it's formed deeply in the oceans. Spencer's work, published (pdf) in the journal Remote Sensing, concludes that more energy is radiated back to space than previously thought, and it is released earlier, too.