Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

Feb 09, 2014
This is a schematic of the trends in temperature and ocean-atmosphere circulation in the Pacific over the past two decades. Color shading shows observed temperature trends (C per decade) during 1992-2011 at the sea surface (Northern Hemisphere only), zonally averaged in the latitude-depth sense (as per Supplementary Fig. 6) and along the equatorial Pacific in the longitude-depth plane (averaged between 5 N S). Peak warming in the western Pacific thermocline is 2.0 C per decade in the reanalysis data and 2.2 C per decade in the model. The mean and anomalous circulation in the Pacific Ocean is shown by bold and thin arrows, respectively, indicating an overall acceleration of the Pacific Ocean shallow overturning cells, the equatorial surface currents and the Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC). The accelerated atmospheric circulation in the Pacific is indicated by the dashed arrows; including theWalker cell (black dashed) and the Hadley cell (red dashed; Northern Hemisphere only). Anomalously high SLP in the North Pacific is indicated by the symbol "H." An equivalent accelerated Hadley cell in the Southern Hemisphere is omitted for clarity. Credit: Nature Climate Change

Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.

New research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change indicates that the dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface , while bringing cooler waters to the surface.

"Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global , but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear" said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

"But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal - as it inevitably will - our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade."

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

Observations are shown as annual anomalies relative to the 1980-2012 mean (grey bars) and a five-year running mean (black solid line). Model projections are shown relative to the year 2000 and combine the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model mean (red dashed line) and range (red shaded envelope). The projections branch o the five-year running mean of observed anomalies and include all simulations as evaluated by the IPCC AR4 and AR5. The cyan, blue and purple dashed lines and the blue shading indicate projections adjusted by the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling estimated by the ocean model (OGCM), under three scenarios: the recent trend extends until 2020 before stabilizing (purple dashed line); the trend stabilizes in year 2012 (blue dashed line); and the wind trend reverses in 2012 and returns to climatological mean values by 2030 (cyan dashed line). The black, dark green and light green dashed lines are as per the above three scenarios, respectively, only using the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling derived from the full coupled model (CGCM). Shading denotes the multi-model range throughout. Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

"The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in that is in striking agreement with observations," Prof England said.

"Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid."

The impact of the on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

"This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, is returned rapidly to the atmosphere" England explains.

This image shows normalized histograms of Pacific trade wind trends (computed over 6 N S and 180 W) for all 20-year periods using monthly data in observations (1980-2011) versus available CMIP5 models (1980-2013). The observed trend strength during 1992-2011 is indicated. Credit: For articles on this paper only. Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

"Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don't rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs," said Prof England.

"We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort - we are just seeing another pause in before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures."

Explore further: Weak El Nino possible by mid-2014, WMO says

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2106

Related Stories

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

Sep 18, 2011

The planet's deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center ...

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

Jul 02, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

2 hours ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

3 hours ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

Groundwater is safe in potential N.Y. fracking area

4 hours ago

Two Cornell hydrologists have completed a thorough groundwater examination of drinking water in a potential hydraulic fracturing area in New York's Southern Tier. They determined that drinking water in potable ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Shootist
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2014
Great horney toads!

Everything conspires to hide Gumball Warming. It's a plot I tells ya!
Shakescene21
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2014
This is very interesting and seems plausible, but there is no explanation of why the equatorial trade winds have undergone this "unprecedented" strengthening. Could this strengthening of the trade winds be a result of global warming? Could we get a pattern of ever-stronger trade winds and ever-warmer water, until something bursts the cycle?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2014
This is very interesting and seems plausible, but there is no explanation of why the equatorial trade winds have undergone this "unprecedented" strengthening. Could this strengthening of the trade winds be a result of global warming? Could we get a pattern of ever-stronger trade winds and ever-warmer water, until something bursts the cycle?
So uh 'shakescene' I see you are at an unprecedented and certainly unearned 3.1. Have you been feverishly uprating yourself with your sockpuppet legions in order to try to disguise your malformed intellect?

This is about as reasonable as assumiing we could affect a 4000 cubic kilometer magma chamber with some pipes full of water.
http://phys.org/n...ght.html
gregor1
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2014
So after years of abusing anyone who mentioned it Matthew England now agrees there's a pause in Global Warming. Perhaps we deserve an apology now he has decided to take his head out of the sand.
verkle
2.9 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2014
Or was it that weaker than normal trade winds in the past caused a temporary spike in global temperatures at that time?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2014
Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now
Yet another hilarious attempt by AGWite "scientists" to rationalize the actual data telling us the globe isn't heating, in spite of their claims to the contrary.

Let's see, I believe the first was, "The extra heat is all at the poles."

Then came, "The extra heat is hiding in Africa."

Then, "The extra heat is in the deep ocean."

Now it's, "Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming."

LOL. What will it be next? Perhaps, "My dog ate the global warming." LOL

Nestle
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2014
Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations
It's not surprising, as it's assumptions are just fitted to data observed. It's not prediction - but a postdiction.
when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid
As Feynman has said, the string theorists don't make predictions, they do make an excuses. I'm afraid, it does apply to climatologists too.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2014
The "Eight Commandments of the Church of AGWism"

http://www.rense....med.html
marcush
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 10, 2014
You guys are hilarious. Keep screaming denial at every climate article as long as you want but it won't stop them coming and neither will it stop the laws of physics.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 10, 2014
You guys are hilarious. Keep screaming denial at every climate article as long as you want but it won't stop them coming and neither will it stop the laws of physics.


Indeed.

No global warming in 16.5 years...

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

...and counting...

Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 10, 2014
ubavontuba seems unable to appreciate combinatorial complexity with
No global warming in 16.5 years..
ubavontuba hasnt understood http://en.wikiped...of_water

ubavontuba fails to consider the base logic of the whole issue, upon these two facts not refuted.

1. CO2 levels are rising
2. CO2 thermal properties

Therefore, as some data does show a pause in warming then where is the heat going ?
We are still getting insolation & we are still burning ~230,000L of petrol per second.

Logically & given the properties of water & the massive amount we have on this planet, it is sensible to conclude there is more ice mass melting on average.

Of course there will be local maxima/minima but, one can't just be that SIMPLE now ubavontuba ?

Look at the reduction in salinity levels around Antarctica, it does show a tremendous amount of melt water over the same period that ubavontuba claims no warming !

Why can you not see the obvious interpretation, educated people can ?
alfie_null
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 10, 2014
You guys are hilarious. Keep screaming denial at every climate article as long as you want but it won't stop them coming and neither will it stop the laws of physics.


Indeed.

No global warming in 16.5 years...

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

...and counting...


Why do you seek to persuade us that so many scientists, climatologists, all over the world are wrong? Could they all be stupid? Mistaken? Maybe all of them, all over the world, are united, in a conspiracy against you (and the rest of us)?

Or, alternatively, you are wrong. Or stupid. Or you have some ulterior motive. Self serving, but not in the best interest of the rest of us.

I get the impression that at least some scientists are inspired by altruistic motives. I certainly don't get that impression about you.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 10, 2014
ubavontuba seems unable to appreciate combinatorial complexity with.... blah.....blah....
-- Mike_Massen
I do, however, appreciate the complexity of your stupidity, or is that combinatorial complexity.

The "science" may be settled, but the AGW Lies are definitely unsettling.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2014
Why do you seek to persuade us that so many scientists, climatologists, all over the world are wrong? Could they all be stupid? Mistaken? Maybe all of them, all over the world, are united, in a conspiracy against you (and the rest of us)?
-- alfie
It's obvious you were dropped on your head and only just came out of that coma. Try googling CLIMATEGATE and read a couple of those emails.
no fate
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 10, 2014
I am a big fan of the math on this one.
Human activities produce 21.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year over natural variance. The Earth system can absorb about half of this by our best estimation. We know the absorbtion spectra of CO2 well enough to know that all things equal, it alone will trap more heat. The fossil fuels burned to release this CO2 produce 143 851 Terawatts of energy into the earth system per year (2008 data), we can account for 98 022 TW of end usage. The rest bleeds into the environment. So we are adding energy to the system and enhancing our ability to trap it at the same time.

Our measurements and observations confirm this has been taking place for several decades. The logic in the article is sound, a pause in surface warming as a result of one of the systems taking up more heat is temporary.

If you don't beleive it is happening, check the numbers, if you deny it is happening, don't bother. Just understand what it is you are denying.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2014
Or was it that weaker than normal trade winds in the past caused a temporary spike in global temperatures at that time?


Neither - both are a natural variation around a mean. The mean temperature continuing to climb on examination of Ave Global Temps vs ENSO........

http://blog.chron...ines.pdf

In other words this process is no driver. It is the redistribution of heat in the climate system (>90 Ocean vs <10 atmosphere).
The driver is the imbalance of Solar SW absorbed vs LWIR emitted.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2014
Why can you not see the obvious interpretation, educated people can ?


Mike:
Why indeed.
The psychiatric profession may have an answer.

Me, I reckon even without basic scientific knowledge, it ought to be common sense to anyone of average intelligence.

Isn't it odd how denial can override even the most basic human attributes. The thinking mind.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2014
Human activities produce 21.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year over natural variance

So?
Fan of math?
The mass of the atmosphere is ~5e18 kgs.
21.3e12/5e18 = 4.26e-6
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2014
@Alfie Collusion among ego driven pseudoscientific elites is nothing new. If we don't study history we are bound to repeat it. The 'science' of eugenics was once endorsed by the fast majority of scientists, politicians and Science Associations too.
http://www.michae...ous.html
namarrgon
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 10, 2014
@gregor1 Eugenics is perfectly valid science; we've been applying it to breeding animals for thousands of years. It's just *morally* repugnant when concerning humans.

And the key word the deniers curiously overlooked, right there in the headline:

SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACE

The so-called "hiatus" applies *only* to SURFACE temperatures. But the ocean has continued heating up the whole time. As the article clearly states:

"The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere."

Global warming hasn't stopped, far from it. It's just been temporarily transferring the extra heat to the ocean instead. Anyone who looks beyond the cherry-picked "16.5 years" period at the WHOLE record will clearly see "warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures." And another of those abrupt steps is coming up, as soon as we get another solid El Niño.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2014
But the ocean has continued heating up the whole time. As the article clearly states:

How much of the ocean? How far down is warming?
The ocean is quite deep.
How is the temperature of the oceans below 5000 meter being measured and what is the baseline to know if it is warming?
namarrgon
5 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2014
0-2000m has been steadily warming since before 1970: http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

References:
Antonov 2005
Domingues et al 2008
Levitus et al 2009 and 2012

If you have good data for >5000m depths, I'd be interested to see it. One would expect to see a slower trend there, of course. But there's still plenty of thermal mass in the top 2km.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 just states something without actually being "thoughtful"
Fan of math?
The mass of the atmosphere is ~5e18 kgs.
21.3e12/5e18 = 4.26e-6
So you failed at addition then & don't understand its CUMULATIVE and don't understand CO2 has NO easy way to leave the atmosphere, noticed rising levels ?
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Is any thinking starting to seep into your appreciation of the complexity ryggesogn2 ?

Where do you get the need to blurt simplistic issues ?

Are you not able to look at complex issues & observe the underlying cause, the properties, the integration, oh did you do any math at high school, what education achievement ryggesogn2 ?

What is your occasional blurt about emissivity to do with integrating CO2 over large regions ?

You do know I hope that its easy to construct an experiment which doesnt need to even deal with emissivity, yet you comment one liners, then go &hide, are you ill, is runrig right, you have a serious problem - what ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2014
Has ryggesogn2 actually thought about his question
How much of the ocean? How far down is warming?
Why do you ignore the containment issue, water is trapped between the surface and the crust, it can only evaporate, no evidence it goes down to anything cooler, why, read on...

Below the ocean it is very hot, heat doesn't seem to go the other way than up, does it ever ?

So you can expect logically the lower regions are getting warmer, partly due to warmer
waters above & heat from the earth - its physics.

So if there were cooling below 5000m there would have to be a very good reason indeed, which clearly would be worthy of investigation.

But, as its probabilistic, do we need to consider issues of ice & massive heat sinks at such low depth when we know the mantle below is extremely hot ?

But, u do raise a point, so find out, u have google, what have you found so far or do you have difficulty & need to be spoon fed again ?

Where is the RESULT of your enquiry then ryggesogn2 ?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014
Why do you seek to persuade us that so many scientists, climatologists, all over the world are wrong? Could they all be stupid? Mistaken? Maybe all of them, all over the world, are united, in a conspiracy against you (and the rest of us)?
Certainly not all of them. But let me ask you this: What kind of person typically goes into climate science to begin with? Do they do so without motivation? Would it be excessive to suggest they might typically exhibit a "crusader" mindset?

Or, alternatively, you are wrong. Or stupid. Or you have some ulterior motive. Self serving, but not in the best interest of the rest of us.
Why are you looking for ulterior motives, when I'm simply reporting data?

I get the impression that at least some scientists are inspired by altruistic motives. I certainly don't get that impression about you.
And you obviously don't see a problem with this altruism?

Don't you think it might be more altruistic to report the objective truth and work to better our reality, than lead personal crusades, based on personal ideologies?

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014
@ubavontuba
Evidence of glacial declines, go back to "Inconvenient Truth" doco,
Eg. Greenland losing tremendous amount of melt water, overall land is rising as weight is reducing.

Problem for simplistic thinkers who forget various links offered re properties of water have great difficulty getting their head around "relative heat capacities"

ubavontuba/ryggesogn2 try appreciate:-

1. The oceans are a MASSIVE heat sink & not homogeneous & subject to complex currents.
2. Vast regions of the oceans are still much colder than large atmospheric regions near ground level
3. More heat in the system, as we have seen influenced by:-
3a. Accepted Rising CO2 levels &
3b. Accepted thermal properties of CO2
4. Heat ALWAYS moves from hot to cold

You have the situation of greater perturbation of oceans, due to more activity, in contact with the atmosphere can cool those regions despite the earth still heating from sun & our activity.

Eventually a new equilibrium will prevail, ie. & its hotter !
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2014
ubavontuba retorted to alfie_null's quote of
Why do you seek to persuade us that so many scientists, climatologists, all over the world are wrong? Could they all be stupid? Mistaken? Maybe all of them, all over the world, are united, in a conspiracy against you (and the rest of us)?
Certainly not all of them. But let me ask you this: What kind of person typically goes into climate science to begin with?
If you follow your sad implication to a conclusion, then you would have to claim ALL universities where those Scientists obtain the training in climate, ie Water, Air, Ocean Currents etc are guilty of manipulation & outright lies & would have to fake consistently laboratory experiments in respect of:-

1. Atmospheric component gas interaction
2. Properties of materials Eg heat capacity
2. Value of calculus Eg Integration

AND all other University training, yet not one student has outlined they were misled !

The fact of the matter is all the relevant fundamentals are KNOWN.
Osteta
Feb 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2014
But the ocean has continued heating up the whole time. As the article clearly states:

How much of the ocean? How far down is warming?
The ocean is quite deep.
How is the temperature of the oceans below 5000 meter being measured and what is the baseline to know if it is warming?


For the benefit of others who do want to learn - I'll link this.

http://uwpcc.wash...2010.pdf

Because as we all know ryggy has no intention of learning anything about science unless it happens so support his view of the World.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014

From global perspective this explanation sounds nonsensical - why some horizontal circulation at the Earth should affect the global warming, which applies to perpendicular direction? It doesn't explain, why the temperature of oceans is rising steadily, whereas the global warming of atmosphere temperature is stalling in the recent two decades.


But it does explain it IF you understand climate science!
Think of a passive water filled solar heating panel – on a roof. It gets hot via sunshine and the pump removes the heated water inside to an internal tank – continually while the water is above a set temp. What happens to the air over that panel? It will be cooler than if the hotter water was still inside the panel. It is a (water-air) cooling system (on the panel/air).
This is what a La Nina does over 1000's sq mls of the Pacific. Remove heated surface water to sink to depth in the west – this completing the circulation by upwelling as cooler water along the S American coastl
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014
But, u do raise a point, so find out, u have google, what have you found so far or do you have difficulty & need to be spoon fed again ?


Those who claim heat is hiding in the ocean must have data showing where that heat is hiding. Altruistic scientists wouldn't lie.
How many temperature sensors are below 5000 meters and what is their dispersion and how long have they been collecting data?

"Wessel et
al. (2010) highlight the need for a systematic mapping
of seamounts in ocean basins. They estimate that 100,000 or
90% of the seamounts greater than 1-km tall are unobserved by
either ship soundings or satellite gravity. "
http://topex.ucsd.../128.pdf
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 can't get his head around the language & maths with this
Those who claim heat is hiding in the ocean must have data showing where that heat is hiding.
Not necessarily, its called integration, once unit properties are know the rest is maths - up to a point. Anyway its not 'hiding' per se' PLEASE check the properties of water so you ryggesogn2, can understand:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water

ryggesogn2
How many temperature sensors are below 5000 meters and what is their dispersion and how long have they been collecting data?
Why this pre-occupation with 5000m ?

What is your hypothesis ryggesogn2 ?

Is it the Ocean below that arbitrary figure is hotter due to its being closest to hot mantle or there is some unknown issue re heat going against physics and disappearing into the hotter regions below ?

HEAT ryggesogn2, ALWAYS moves from HOT to COLD, physics !

PLEASE ryggesogn2, get a basic education & don't confuse heat flow with convection - got it?
namarrgon
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2014
Those who claim heat is hiding in the ocean must have data showing where that heat is hiding.

I gave you data showing heat "hiding" in the upper 2000m. Is that not relevant?

I do not know how much data we have on heat content below 5000m (probably only recent if any), but I don't see that it's all that germane to the article. If heat from the surface is being soaked up by the ocean, it'll be found in the topmost layer first.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
@ubavontuba
Evidence of glacial declines, go back to "Inconvenient Truth" doco,
Eg. Greenland losing tremendous amount of melt water, overall land is rising as weight is reducing.
LOL. See, this is a prime example of the ignorance of the AGWite crowd. They insist Greenland is melting as a result of global warming, until they eventually find out it isn't.

Funny thing about that though is then they blame global warming on it thickening!

http://www.abc.ne...5573.htm

There's little doubt Mike_Massen will now start to whine about the THICKENING Greenland ice sheet being the result of global warming. And even though it's physically impossible for it to both be thickening AND contribute "the most to sea level rise" he will, like the AGWite scientists, insist this simply MUST be true.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
don't confuse heat flow with convection

Heat flows three ways: convection, conduction and radiation.
Why 5000m? ~50% of the ocean volume is below 5km. That's a LOT of water at ~2C.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
ubavontuba retorted to alfie_null's quote of
Why do you seek to persuade us that so many scientists, climatologists, all over the world are wrong? Could they all be stupid? Mistaken? Maybe all of them, all over the world, are united, in a conspiracy against you (and the rest of us)?
Certainly not all of them. But let me ask you this: What kind of person typically goes into climate science to begin with?
If you follow your sad implication to a conclusion, then you would have to claim ALL universities where those Scientists obtain the training in climate, ie Water, Air, Ocean Currents etc are guilty of manipulation & outright lies & would have to fake consistently laboratory experiments in respect of:-
Here is an example of the extremest viewpoint of the AGWite crowd, and their loss of objectivity.

Mike_Massen's extremism clearly interferes with his comprehension. I clearly state, "Certainly not all of them." and then he insists, I mean "ALL" (in caps, no less).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
But it does explain it IF you understand climate science!
Think of a passive water filled solar heating panel – on a roof. It gets hot via sunshine and the pump removes the heated water inside to an internal tank – continually while the water is above a set temp. What happens to the air over that panel? It will be cooler than if the hotter water was still inside the panel. It is a (water-air) cooling system (on the panel/air).
This is what a La Nina does over 1000's sq mls of the Pacific. Remove heated surface water to sink to depth in the west – this completing the circulation by upwelling as cooler water along the S American coastl
And this supposedly happens in what time frame?

See, this is yet another example of the AGWite belief system. The heat is missing, so it simply MUST be somewhere, even in physically impossible places!

It takes centuries for deep cold water to rise.

"the oldest waters (with a transit time of around 1000 years) upwell in the North Pacific"

And what's really funny is the wind actually cools the oceans, thus causing the opposite effect of what's claimed here.

"...seawater at the surface of the ocean is intensely cooled by the wind."

"...evaporative cooling is predominant,"

http://en.wikiped...culation

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
don't confuse heat flow with convection

Heat flows three ways: convection, conduction and radiation.
Why 5000m? ~50% of the ocean volume is below 5km. That's a LOT of water at ~2C.


Quite incredible ryggy:
Heat also flows by the movement of the entity having "heat" - as here with the forced circulation caused by the interaction of the Trades and Ekman physics.

The EUC flows at a speed of 1m/s or 2 knots. Convergence in the W Pacific means it has to sink - the sea height there already being 0.5m higher than in the E.

http://www-pord.u...ulation/

Why does heat hidden from the atmosphere, and thus giving rise to the current "hiatus" have to be below 5km FFS?
And if that was demonstrated – you'd switch to below that. Typical denialism and goal-post shifting.
Talking of goal-post shifting.
I see the ace proponant of the art has entered the thread.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
Ekman physics? Is that anything like Newtonian physics or quantum mechanics?

This is one area that niche science has a problem. Instead of making any attempt to standardize a subject, the field goes the opposite way obscuring their terms and creating new 'physics'.
A few decades ago mathematicians abandoned practical math which led to engineering departments creating 'engineering math' programs and books and physics departments created mathematical physics books and courses.
Why does heat hidden from the atmosphere, and thus giving rise to the current "hiatus" have to be below 5km FFS?


If heat is in the upper oceans how can it be hidden? It's there or it is not, measure it.
The ocean is big and there has not been many consistent long term data points around the world below 5km, the region of ocean that is quite thermally stable. It the heat hiding there?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
If heat is in the upper oceans how can it be hidden? It's there or it is not, measure it.
The ocean is big and there has not been many consistent long term data points around the world below 5km, the region of ocean that is quite thermally stable. It the heat hiding there?


Read the post FFS. And also the the link
Also, as Mike and others have said - read up on heat as opposed to temperature.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2014
@ubavontuba,
It has been reported Greenland is losing more in MASS from melting than gaining in snow, where is your data that proves the converse ?
Interesting re TV program why not read the whole transcript, especially re MASS ?

Proof of your claim "It takes centuries for deep cold water to rise." Eg. over what (static) regions vs those with currents & where measured, ever heard of tidally induced currents ?

H2O finds easy path out via precipitation (not so CO2, which you accept), so more H2O emitted will result in more snow & rain - its the DIFFERENTIAL that is the important issue.

"wind actually cools the oceans", transfer of heat -> warms the air.

@ryggesogn2,
What is source of your data re below 5000m & source that it is (all) at 2 deg ?
Heard of mid Atlantic ridges & places where high temp water wells up ?

Where is proof of your claim "below 5km, the region of ocean that is quite thermally stable" and especially so in respect of upwelling heat sources?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
……Instead of making any attempt to standardize a subject, the field goes the opposite way obscuring their terms and creating new 'physics'.


ryggy –You can Google as well the next man/woman. If you don't understand then try it.
That instead of parading your ignorance and wearing it proudly like a badge.

"Ekman motion theory first investigated in 1902 by Vagn Walfrid Ekman, is the term given for the 90° net transport of the surface layer (the layer affected by wind) by wind forcing. This phenomenon was first noted by Fridtjof Nansen, who recorded that ice transport appeared to occur at an angle to the wind direction during his Arctic expedition during the 1890s. The direction of transport is dependent on the hemisphere: in the northern hemisphere, transport occurs at 90° clockwise from wind direction, while in the southern hemisphere it occurs at a 90° counterclockwise"

http://en.wikiped...ransport
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
Ekman motion theory

This is some kind of new physics?

"The next layer is the pycnocline, or transition zone. The density here does not change very much. This transition zone is a barrier between the surface zone and a bottom layer, allowing little water movement between the two zones.

The bottom layer is the deep zone, where the water remains cold and dense. The polar regions are the only places where deep waters are ever exposed to the atmosphere because the pycnocline is not always present."
http://www.onr.na...ity1.htm
no fate
5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
don't confuse heat flow with convection

Heat flows three ways: convection, conduction and radiation.
Why 5000m? ~50% of the ocean volume is below 5km. That's a LOT of water at ~2C.


It is?

http://oceanservi...pth.html

Average ocean depth for the entire planet is alot shallower than 5KM. For half the volume to be below that mark you would need an average depth of 10KM. At least you are consistent with your accuracy of information from post to post.

runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
Ekman motion theory

This is some kind of new physics?



Read the bloody quote and link will you.

"Ekman motion theory first investigated in 1902 by Vagn Walfrid Ekman..."

New physics my arse.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
Just feeding the troll runrig! :) Cause it's all a socialist plot dontcha know? Ask Noemenon or Shootist or antigoracle, they all see it.

Don't ask Uba though, he'll just link to the wood for trees site again. Then tell you the glaciers are growing while they're shrinking, or the ocean is acidifying from not CO2, or the extent of ice around Antarctica is the same as the volume of the recovered ice in the Arctic, or something similarly nonsensical.

Look at the average rankings runrig, clearly they are preaching only to themselves.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
Just feeding the troll runrig! :) Cause it's all a socialist plot dontcha know? Ask Noemenon or Shootist or antigoracle, they all see it.

Don't ask Uba though, he'll just link to the wood for trees site again. Then tell you the glaciers are growing while they're shrinking, or the ocean is acidifying from not CO2, or the extent of ice around Antarctica is the same as the volume of the recovered ice in the Arctic, or something similarly nonsensical.

Look at the average rankings runrig, clearly they are preaching only to themselves.


You're right of course Maggnus:
I should just let the denialist trolls embarrass themselves.
It just makes my blood boil to see one of the worst traits of human-kind on display here.
Like they are the pinnacle of human achievement - demonstrated by tearing down the achievements of others ....... because THEY don't like it.
Those motivated by selfishness are beyond contempt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014
runny:

nteraction of the Trades and Ekman physics.

New physics my arse.


Runny called it "Ekman physics".
I have a physics degree and never heard of "Ekman physics".
I had classical theoretical physics, modern theoretical physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, optics, electromagnetics, but not Ekman physics.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014


Average ocean depth for the entire planet is alot shallower than 5KM. For half the volume to be below that mark you would need an average depth of 10KM. At least you are consistent with your accuracy of information from post to post.



"The average ocean depth is 4.3 kilometers"

700 meters is 'a lot'?

I was looking for a source for the MEDIAN depth of the ocean, which means half the water is above and half below. Medan and mean are not always the same .
namarrgon
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014
If heat is in the upper oceans how can it be hidden? It's there or it is not, measure it.

Now I know for sure you're deliberately ignoring the evidence. It's clear why you get labelled a denier.

The growing heat in the upper oceans has indeed been measured, for over 40 years as the cited studies showed. But when you pretend that data simply doesn't exist and repeatedly ignore it when pointed out to you, you abandon all claim to rationality and place yourself firmly with that sad group of wilfully ignorant people whose opinions are not only worthless but counter-productive.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
After considerable time ryggesogn2 CLAIMS
I have a physics degree and never heard of "Ekman physics".
Surely its not one of those $9.95 degrees you send away for ?

How is it possible then you had no knowledge of:-

- Properties of water
- heat capacity
- calculus

AND, not able to understand (still) how to interpret the increasing levels of CO2 in conjunction with known thermal properties ??

Until I & others brought it to your attention, just which notable university granted you a degree & WHEN, please ?

My qualifications are from Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia & you know my name, I do not hide, what is your name ryggesogn2, where did you get *any* Science accreditations, your posts are so often like someone who is trying to learn as they go along and *not* understanding basic properties which all physics graduates should be able to appreciate if they have EVER done mathematics which involved Calculus.

Did you get an exemption from Calculus due to disability ?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2014
runny:

nteraction of the Trades and Ekman physics.

New physics my arse.


Runny called it "Ekman physics".
I have a physics degree and never heard of "Ekman physics".
I had classical theoretical physics, modern theoretical physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, optics, electromagnetics, but not Ekman physics.


But not Meteorology and fluid dynamcs on a rotating body.

The "physics" bit is the process that describes fluid motion in a body of water overlying the equator with differential Coriolis forces acting to the north and south.
Again I suggest you read it up and stop making stupid statements if you really want to learn.

You don't get to rubbish the science or the subject of this thread because you are ignorant of the processes governing it.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
:-)

ryggesogn2 yet again betrays lack of Science training
"The average ocean depth is 4.3 kilometers"
700 meters is 'a lot'?
I was looking for a source for the MEDIAN depth of the ocean, which means half the water is above and half below. Medan and mean are not always the same .
Doh, re 'mean' !

Way you describe & comment is consistent with someone who only RECENTLY is 'finding things out' & has NO depth of knowledge re key properties of materials which one SHOULD learn at an accredited University & especially so in respect of your "clunky" approach re your pre-occupation with heat at 5000m depth !

Surely ryggesogn2, you MUST have used your CLAIMED training at University level to determine FIRST whether this line of enquiry has any validity worth pursuing, its part of ANALYSIS, tell us:-

- Mass of Ocean liquid water above your arbitrary depth ?
- Mass of Ocean liquid water below your arbitrary depth ?
- & for interest, mass of Ice ?

AND

Where did that data come from ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
You don't get to rubbish the science

Speak in terms that are known outside your clique.

But when you pretend that data simply doesn't exist

I am not pretending:
Headline: "Is global warming hiding underwater?"
"Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years."
"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.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp"]http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"[/url]
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014

Speak in terms that are known outside your clique.

But when you pretend that data simply doesn't exist

I am not pretending:

Headline: "Is global warming hiding underwater?"
"Satellite observations of global sea-surface temperature show that a 30-year upward trend has slowed down within the last 15 years."
" again, ad nauseam, again, ad naseam......

Well what a surprise ryggy pops up and stays true to form.

ryggy, as you seem incapable of comprehending - this is Earth, above ground. Not some sort of alternative Universe that you and your ilk inhabit. I will discuss with anyone who gives the merest flicker of intelligence on the subject they pontificate about - even those lacking science knowledge. However you now enter Uba territory with which there can be no reasonable discourse.
I will henceforth treat you as I do him. Deny you bollocks with a 1st post then let you rant away to your heart's content.
djmer1
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
Only one thing matters to me. It scares and dismays me deeply.

Are we really stupid enough to measure "global warming" without counting heat going into the ocean?

There was NO HIATUS. Warming didn't slow. Are you nuts? It's under water! That's still part of the planet. We don't exclude the ocean. That would be silly.

Telling the public global warming slowed down because we don't count heat in the ocean the most stupid, misleading and dangerous thing I can imagine doing. I expect that from Lord Monckton and co. How can intelligent people go along with that mmessage?

Hooray!! Nothing to worry about. Do intelligent people measure global warming by leaving out the main place it accumulates? Are you kidding me? You don't count oceans in public warming charts?

If that's how academics measure global warming we might as well give up. What's the point if we ignore most of the warming?

Can I play that game too? It would be a tempting relief to play along.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
Only one thing matters to me. It scares and dismays me deeply.
Are we really stupid enough to measure "global warming" without counting heat going into the ocean?
There was NO HIATUS Warming didn't slow. Are you nuts? It's under water! That's still part of the planet. We don't exclude the ocean. That would be silly.
Telling the public global warming slowed down because we don't count heat in the ocean the most stupid, misleading and dangerous thing I can imagine doing. I expect that from Lord Monckton and co. How can intelligent people go along with that mmessage?
Hooray!! Nothing to worry about. Do intelligent people measure global warming by leaving out the main place it accumulates? Are you kidding me? You don't count oceans in public warming charts?
If that's how academics measure global warming we might as well give up. What's the point if we ignore most of the warming?
Can I play that game too? It would be a tempting relief to play along.

Excellent post djmer1
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
Are we really stupid enough to measure "global warming" without counting heat going into the ocean?

Telling the public global warming slowed down because we don't count heat in the ocean the most stupid, misleading and dangerous thing I can imagine doing.

I expect that from Lord Monckton and co. How can intelligent people go along with that mmessage?

Hooray!! Nothing to worry about. Do intelligent people measure global warming by leaving out the main place it accumulates? Are you kidding me? You don't count oceans in public warming charts?

Can I play that game too? It would be a tempting relief to play along.


1 We count the heat in the oceans, the deniers just use terms that preclude inclusion of all heat sources.

2) We seem to have really strange deniers on this site. One is regularly involved in domestic abuse and improprieties with kids. Then you have tho proponents of the electric Universe. Then the Dense Aether group, and they go on forever.