New study explains the role of oceans in global 'warming hiatus'

New study explains the role of oceans in global 'warming hiatus'
The red areas show where the ocean has been taking up more heat during the global "warming hiatus." Credit: University of Southampton

New research shows that ocean heat uptake across three oceans is the likely cause of the 'warming hiatus' - the current decade-long slowdown in global surface warming.

Using data from a range of state-of-the-art and atmosphere models, the research shows that the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean basins has played a significant role in the hiatus.

The new analysis has been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Professor Sybren Drijfhout from the University of Southampton and collaborators from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) Dr Adam Blaker, Professor Simon Josey, Dr George Nurser and Dr Bablu Sinha, together with Dr Magdalena Balmaseda from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF).

Professor Drijfhout said: "This study attributes the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean to specific, different mechanisms in each region. This is important as current climate models have been unable to simulate the hiatus. Our study gives clues to where the heat is drawn down and by which processes. This can serve as a benchmark for climate models on how to improve their projections of future global mean temperature."

Previously, the drawdown of heat by the Equatorial Pacific Ocean over the hiatus period, due to cool sea-surface temperatures associated with a succession of cool-surface La Nina episodes, was thought to be sufficient to explain the hiatus.

However, this new analysis reveals that the northern North Atlantic, the Southern Ocean and Equatorial Pacific Ocean are all important regions of ocean heat uptake. Each basin contributes a roughly equal amount to explaining the hiatus, but the mechanisms of heat drawdown are different and specific in each basin.

In the North Atlantic, more heat has been retained at deep levels as a result of changes to both the ocean and atmospheric circulations, which have led to the winter atmosphere extracting less heat from the ocean.

In the Southern Ocean, the extra drawdown of heat had gone unnoticed and is increasing on a much longer timescale (multi-decadal) than the other two regions (decadal). Here, gradual changes in the prevailing westerly winds have modified the ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, particularly in the Southern Indian Ocean.

The team calculated the change in the amount of heat entering the ocean using a state-of-the-art high resolution ocean model developed and run by NOC scientists that is driven by surface observations. This estimate was compared with results from an ocean model-data synthesis from ECMWF and a leading atmospheric model-data synthesis produced in the US. Professor Josey said: "It is the synthesis of information from models and observational data that provides a major strength of our study."

Dr Sinha concluded: "The deeper understanding gained in this study of the processes and regions responsible for variations in oceanic drawdown and retention will improve the accuracy of future climate projections."


Explore further

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

More information: Drijfhout, S. S., Blaker, A. T., Josey, S. A., Nurser, A. J. G., Sinha, B., and Balmaseda, M. A. (2014). Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL061456
Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Citation: New study explains the role of oceans in global 'warming hiatus' (2014, December 3) retrieved 18 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-role-oceans-global-hiatus.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 03, 2014
Are there any factors left for the deniers to bring up? I think that pretty much does it.

Dec 03, 2014
Sounds like 30 year old news to me. The oceans are another buffer for heat.
Yep, just another prediction you get by increasing the fidelity of the brass bowl to being a world with water and (recessed) ice caps.
Thermodynamics and density.

Though, it suggests the hiatus is coming to a foreseeable end, and the world will get warmer much faster, and now that AGWers are starting to acknowledge it's "Global Change," not warming, the world will start to warm...

I don't see any other natural temperature buffers.

Hopefully the wind and solar increase will stop the trend, indeed, has already begun to.

Dec 03, 2014
"now that AGWers are starting to acknowledge it's "Global Change," not warming,"
-------------------------------------

We have always tried to tell you that heat is the engine of weather, and more heat in the oceans means more extreme weather, not more balmy nights. The increased heating is making it more extreme as well as warmer overall.

BTW, I do not know what you folk in your state are doing, but check this out:
http://www.fierce...14-11-26

Dec 03, 2014
@gkam
No, "you" have always been insistent that CO2 was changing the climate. I have never been concerned about weather.

I have always said it was heat released by fossil fuels driving climate change. With increase in use of "green" energy, one would expect a global hiatus, according to my crazy theory. There is good correlation.

I have always understood how "weather" proceeds from equator to pole, and reference it frequently.

The problem, my friend, is that what I say contradicts both deniers and AGW-ers, and yet is consistent, only uses basic principles, and is predictive.

Which is good science, like it or not.

Dec 03, 2014
Do you see? Global warming hasn't stopped. It has only been buffered by the heat capacity of the oceans. As far as all the gloom-n-doom predictions go, for global warming, it full speed ahead! Yea-ha! Batten down the hatches, we are going to toast this planet! At least that's what the republicans want.

Don't you wish it was otherwise @Water?

Dec 03, 2014
I see the believers are all happy. There is a tiny problem, a recent paper from NASA shows the oceans are not warming up so this study may be horse manure despite all the pretty pictures. You believers might note another recent paper points out the mid and lower troposphere show no trend in 55 years, the arctic and antarctic are both gaining ice, the US average temperature has dropped since 1998. Finally you might notice that this claim and all the rest of the claims are based on revision three of the giss data set. The 1998 version shows the world was cooling, the current version shows it is warming, the only difference in the graph is the person who fudged with the data. The RSS data show no warming. Maybe you should look at the revisions and what they did. Less than 2000 stations, most in first world countries, most in the north and huge holes in the data, all filled with plugs.

Dec 03, 2014
I might add a further tiny info. The increase in the arctic ice this year is curious, less than average in the pacific side, and greater in the atlantic side. That contradicts the claim the north atlantic is warming as the extent is measure in September the low, hottest period.

Dec 03, 2014
mbee, do you really think scientists have the ethics of your profession, whatever it is? In business, in politics, in religion, in finance, in the fields we invented we can and do change the rules at our desire and convenience and profit.

No so in science, where the Laws of Nature do ot bend, and where there are a bevy of others trying to make their mark by finding the holes in your theories and studies, which must be reproducible by others, and lead to predictability.

Do not get your "science" from anything but peer-reviewed studies.

Dec 03, 2014
There is a tiny problem, a recent paper from NASA shows the oceans are not warming up so this study may be horse manure despite all the pretty pictures.

Do you have a link to this study? I'm not aware of one that says this. A recent study indicated that the warming of the upper ocean is greatly underestimated, but with sea level rise not showing any sign of stopping, it's clear the ocean as a whole is still warming.

The 1998 version shows the world was cooling, the current version shows it is warming, the only difference in the graph is the person who fudged with the data.

Interesting that this claim, as with all claims of fudging the data, has no evidence. No one's been able to state why any of the changes are wrong.

The RSS data show no warming.

Keep in mind all the problems that the satellite models have had, usually introducing a cold bias into the temperature, and still have as a recent study pointed out.

Dec 04, 2014
"You believers might note another recent paper points out the mid and lower troposphere show no trend in 55 years, the arctic and antarctic are both gaining ice, the US average temperature has dropped since 1998. "

I wonder if you have a link to the "no trend in 55 years" paper? I'd think that any such paper would be trumpeted by the anti-science blogs, but I've heard nothing.

I also note that you don't mention that Antarctic and Arctic sea ice have increased despite greatly warming temperatures in both regions, that the Arctic has experienced short term gains in ice previously during the recent melt, that Antarctica is losing ice overall, and that the U.S. is a very small area of the world. But nice Gish Gallop!

Dec 04, 2014
ALCHE/crybaby stated
yet is consistent, only uses basic principles, and is predictive
1- there is NO evidence of consistency
2- there is NO evidence that his model is predictive (which would require past predictions which are proven accurate over time)
3- WRT- basic principles: you also IGNORE any evidence AND physics that do not support your conclusions which is BAD SCIENCE

in fact, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
especially WRT your water bowl analogy

Do not get your "science" from anything but peer-reviewed studies.
@gkam
THANK YOU!

keep pointing this out for the nooB's... it will help them see who the charlatans are (like ALCHE/crybaby above) and who prefers real science, like Runrig, et al!

PEACE

Dec 04, 2014
We have always tried to tell you that heat is the engine of weather

Heat is just a form of energy. It's mindless to think that other forms of energy can't affect the weather/climate. Electric fields have been proven to manipulate 'clouds' in experiments.
http://en.wikiped..._chamber

In business, in politics, in religion, in finance, in the fields we invented we can and do change the rules at our desire and convenience and profit.

No so in science

What a rosy view. To think that one industry functions different than any other is simply ludicrous.

Case in point: Wilhelm Reich and orgone energy. I know I know, its the feared pseudoscience talk again. But just understand this research was banned from existence because the FDA said so.

A chihuahua and rottweiler may look different, act different, sound different, but they're still dogs...

Dec 04, 2014
"@gkam
THANK YOU!
keep pointing this out for the nooB's.."
----------------------------------

None needed. You are often the one who goes the extra several miles to actually look up the supporting documents for these folk. I'll go back to my experience, or a news story, but do not have the patience to argue point-by-point. I'll wait them out, instead, finding meager pleasure in being "right" in a destroyed Earth.

Dec 04, 2014
finding meager pleasure in being "right" in a destroyed Earth.

Adhering to mainstream science does not equate to being "right", it just means you're a loyal follower. Also a bit morbid you think the Earth is "destroyed", do you have any data to back that up?

Dec 04, 2014
And I posit following cult science or politicized science is even worse, and less likely to have merit.

Dec 04, 2014
politicized science is even worse

AGW is the most highly politicized science there is, and one that deals with mountains of money.
http://www.chicag...ory.html

Dec 04, 2014
"AGW is the most highly politicized science there is, and one that deals with mountains of money."
--------------------------------------

Thank you for the admission. Most of the Denier money comes from the Koch Brothers and other purveyors of Filthy Fuels, who now see us breaking the addiction.

Dec 04, 2014
politicized science is even worse

AGW is the most highly politicized science there is, and one that deals with mountains of money.
http://www.chicag...ory.html

So the "Oil" side isn't pouring in money to defend their product then? (Rhetorical).
And yes it certainly is politicised ... this doesn't refute the science however. Empirical science, we have no need to look elsewhere as it is explained thus.

Dec 04, 2014
@scroof
you said
AGW is the most highly politicized science there is, and one that deals with mountains of money.
http://www.chicag...ory.html
but you only linked an article, not a study
this is no different than saying "Cyclones are caused by Fairy farts" and then linking to a Wicca site where they support your conclusions

All science deals with large sums of money
the question you "should" be asking is why would anyone fund and organization to actively undermine real science, experiments and empirical data collected which support a conclusion

This is not speculation, nor is it just found in articles... we KNOW that this is true, as it is in a published study here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

you want desperately to believe in something, so you do
that is pseudoscience

science follows the evidence

Dec 04, 2014
Adhering to mainstream science does not equate to being "right", it just means you're a loyal follower
@scroof
and adhering to pseudoscience or creationist makes you more right?
does it make you feel morally superior or something?

sorry... i know you dislike hearing this, but "mainstream science" is mainstream for a reason: it is supported by empirical evidence published in reputable peer reviewed journals/mag's etc

fringe ideas are not always wrong, true, but accepting one when there is empirical evidence refuting your conclusions is called: pseudoscience
or , in the case of climate science, it is called: denial
Hence the term: Denier
AGW is the most highly politicized science there is
that is why you should be posting science and studies and ignoring the politics and the fringe articles with biased POV's

This will eliminate almost all of the political influence and allow you to focus on what is important: reality and the science

Dec 04, 2014
Case in point: Wilhelm Reich and orgone energy. I know I know, its the feared pseudoscience talk again. But just understand this research was banned from existence because the FDA said so
@scroof
and this is simply not a good analogy because:
1- it is pseudoscience, therefore, it is NOT science, but more like stupidity
2- it was banned because too many stupid OR uneducated people were being conned
3- if the IRS, court system or FBI/Homeland/Law Enforcement would have jailed them today for being a Con job stealing people's money and fraudulently causing harm, would you feel the same?
4- it is not banned research, it is banned because it is fraudulent as well as harmful to the public
5- and i reiterate, because this is important: it is pseudoscience

there is a huge difference between pseudoscience and science

Science has evidence and continues to change and adapt with regard to evidence making things MORE clear or precise

Dec 04, 2014
Okay Stumpy, we appreciate your going the extra mile for the cause, but to blatantly deny: "Cyclones are caused by Fairy farts", is to go too far.

Show me the peer-reviewed study which refutes it!

Dec 04, 2014
@howhot
Absolutely. )o;
@mbee
Please don't be on this forum with a closed mind. There are lies on both sides, it's a good place to challenge them.

I am not saying I am right: But consider. Snow has about an 80% albedo, if I remember correctly. The ice at the North Pole has receded 630,000 square kilometers:
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

That is 630k square kilometers with basically a 20% albedo, that is absorbing 80%, instead of reflecting it.

How is it conceivable then, that so much energy isn't changing if not the temperature dramatically, adding energy that melts ice, changes the depth of 4.2 C ice (density) etc.?

Submitted for consideration.

@zz5555,
good questions.

Dec 04, 2014
You're so naive Stumpy, obviously there would be a "scientific paper" examining the income of the climate change counter movement. I bet you won't find one assessing the income of AGW supporters though.

Instead I'll just go to the source. Government spending in 2010 was $8.8b, it would be dumb to assume it hasn't increased since then.
http://www.gao.go...8556.pdf
That's not even accounting for other nations/companies/individuals. Huge industry, no matter what your science journals would tell you.

@scroof
and adhering to pseudoscience or creationist makes you more right?
does it make you feel morally superior or something?

It makes me objective, no more no less.

Dec 04, 2014
1- it is pseudoscience, therefore, it is NOT science, but more like stupidity
2- it was banned because too many stupid OR uneducated people were being conned
3- if the IRS, court system or FBI/Homeland/Law Enforcement would have jailed them today for being a Con job stealing people's money and fraudulently causing harm, would you feel the same?
4- it is not banned research, it is banned because it is fraudulent as well as harmful to the public

1- Orgone energy never had a chance to be anything other than "pseudoscience". The government persecuted a science, plain and simple.
2- There was never any proof he conned people, it was Brady's smear article "The Strange Case of Wilhelm Reich" that alleged so.
3- The only time people got hurt was from overuse, which was clearly against the instructions. By your logic, pharma companies should be indicted because people overdose on pills.
4- It was harmful to the stupid OR uneducated. It is no more fraudulent than antidepressants.

Dec 04, 2014
Denier science is pseudoscience. That is know fact.
1- it is pseudoscience, therefore, it is NOT science, but more like stupidity
2- it was banned because too many stupid OR uneducated people were being conned
3- if the IRS, court system or FBI/Homeland/Law Enforcement would have jailed them today for being a Con job stealing people's money and fraudulently causing harm, would you feel the same?
4- it is not banned research, it is banned because it is fraudulent as well as harmful to the public
5- and i reiterate, because this is important: it is pseudoscience

Deniers all like to flock to Wattsupwiiththat to pick talking points, but like all deniers sites, it pseudoscience like everything they talk about. Deniers = losers. And usually rightwing losers at that. Liberal deniers is an oxymoron. Therefore, a Denier = rightwing fruit cake (like you are denier) and from that you can deduce that your probably a POS too denier.

Dec 04, 2014
Therefore, a Denier = rightwing fruit cake (like you are denier) and from that you can deduce that your probably a POS too.

LMAO, your deductions are about as good as your debate skills, useless. Never been to WUWT, can't stand politics, and I don't use "talking points" like a pawn.

Didn't have any of your prescribed "talking points" to use against my comments? The only real POS here is the one who criticizes without reason.

Dec 04, 2014
Therefore, a Denier = rightwing fruit cake (like you are denier) and from that you can deduce that your probably a POS too.

LMAO, your deductions are about as good as your debate skills, useless. Never been to WUWT, can't stand politics, and I don't use "talking points" like a pawn.

Didn't have any of your prescribed "talking points" to use against my comments? The only real POS here is the one who criticizes without reason.


Oh, I see a POS denier spoke up, trying to defend his position that he is not a POS. Good move man. So ahh... are you a rightwinger? Will you admit that to this forum?


Dec 04, 2014
Oh, I see a POS denier spoke up, trying to defend his position that he is not a POS

I don't need to defend anything, my arguments speak for themselves. Notice you haven't actually rebutted anything, just accused and changed subjects in the hand waviest of ways.

You got me, I'm a rightwinger, and a leftwinger, and an upwinger, and a downwinger, and I like green eggs and ham

Dec 04, 2014
@Scroofinator says;
my arguments speak for themselves.
BS. You don't even have arguments. I challenge you to even make one science claim that hasn't been refuted. The article above makes all kinds of claims an every one is true. I've yet to see you make a counter claim that hasn't been refuted 1000 times before. Your a fake dude. A total goof ball rightwinger that doesn't know spit about science.

Try again.

Dec 04, 2014
Here @Scroofinator because you don't read, here is what the article says in a nut shell;
Using data from a range of state-of-the-art ocean and atmosphere models, the research shows that the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean basins has played a significant role in the hiatus.


Try again with your rightwing talking points. They are a laugh.


Dec 05, 2014
@Scroof
I bet you won't find one assessing the income of AGW supporters though
here's your chance to get famous
Government spending in 2010 was $8.8b
you do realize that the funding you are reading also included things like EPA funds and other federally sponsored state/fed regulated organizations like Dept. of Environmental Quality, which we've been funding for a long time...

those things that prevent & investigate, regulate and inspect agricultural and logging soil erosion, riparian work, feedlot runoff pollution, paying investigators to inspect septic installation, etc?

SO the number, while large, is not all allotted to funding scientists putting out studies
It makes me objective, no more no less
when something is falsified, continuing to believe it makes one stupid, not objective
and don't even get me started on religion
You're so naive Stumpy
i am not the one being suckered by pseudoscience


Dec 05, 2014
@scroof
Orgone energy never had a chance to be anything...
conjecture without evidence
you are talking about chi/Qi and orgasms
Qi has NO basis in science whatsoever, like any other religion AND there are still believers
proof he conned people
accepting money for a known fallacy is a CON, no matter how you look at it
it would be like me trying to sell you a bottle of Qi
The only time people got hurt was from overuse
you can't overuse something that doesn't exist
the guy was shocking the sh*t out of people
http://inventors....gone.htm
also, "orgone" – derived from "orgasm" and "organism" is not real, it is the construct of a fruitcake
https://en.wikipe...lm_Reich
and he WAS shut down for FRAUD- http://www.webcit...8E1awEUD
was this censorship?
yes
do i agree with censorship?
no
was orgone real?
there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever supporting it's reality
it was more porn than science

Dec 05, 2014
@scroof
By your logic, pharma companies should be indicted because people overdose on pills
pills and pharmaceuticals are supported by studies and science which can be proven, the good doc was a psychoanalyst, not a scientist https://en.wikipe...lm_Reich
It is no more fraudulent than antidepressants
antidepressants actually work on some people who need them, and there are a great number of people who regularly use them with no adverse effects, whereas the doc was using his position of power to get his kink on and sell a fraudulent idea with its bases firmly rooted in a faith, not science OR reality, so there is a HUGE difference in the two
I can go look up studies on SSRI's, but i can't find sh*t on Qi (although the "orgasm" part or orgone is readily researched)

Dec 05, 2014
@scroof
you told Howhot2
can't stand politics
at least we agree on that, but there is a problem... religion is far more destructive and based upon a faith, or belief, that is not proven, nor scientific, as it is, by definition, a belief in something without evidence, and therefore is not science (this is also known as pseudoscience when you try to mix the two while forgetting to take the religious goggles off)
and as for the creationist movement (who tried to lie about science being involved when they called themselves Creation Science) everyone knows there is no science involved... even the court could see that much: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

So leave off this orgone pseudoscience con and get back to the REAL science

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more