Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean

By steven d keeler | Aug 25, 2014


This is 'beyond' stuff one can make up


“Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. “Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause.”

The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.

“The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat,” Tung said. “But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise.”

Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.


From the Blog sphere, Stephan Rasey :

I can understand how desperate Ph.D. candidates would write such fiction about Ocean Heat Content at depths greater than 1000 meters prior to the 2003 start of ARGO and beyond 300 meters prior to ALACE in 1990. They should choose something else to study for their dissertation, but I can understand how in desperation they may grasp as such straws where data collection is so poorly sampled and geographically biased.  So, we are offered -  “It comes out of a computer, so it must be right”

What I cannot understand is how any university or professor who values a reputation contributes to such studies where the data does not exist with the geographic sampling and accuracy to support ANY conclusions.

Beyond the tripe of “knowing” the temperature or heat content of the oceans in 1950-1990 from 300 meters to 2000 meters, their top illustration has two fatal flaws in my opinion.

1. their upper graph says “Global Mean Temperature Anomaly” which has to do with the surface air, not the water. It is misdirection by association and ambiguous titling.
2. their central chart has a color scale that goes up to 1×10^20 J. It might be a technicality, but as a density plot, the units have to be J/m of depth — if that what it really is.

I was looking for a plot of actual temperature instead of heat. There isn’t one because it isn’t alarming.

It takes 27.5 ZJ (1 ZJ = 10^21 J) to raise the 0-2000 m water column a grand total of 0.01 deg C. So, it takes 0.14 ZJ to raise each meter of water by 0.1 deg C.
The maximum scale, even with most generous accuracy in depth resolution, can only show 0.07 deg C the upper few meters of water. Maybe with 100,000 ARGO profiles per year, we know the 0-2000 meter water average temperature to a few hundredths of a deg C. But it does not follow that we know each meter of water to the same precision – the uncertainties, even with heavy dependence, don’t work that way.

Prior to ARGO, we don’t have anywhere near the data collection to support such precision.

Studies of ocean heat content for intervals deeper than 1000 meters and times prior to 2004 should be shredded at first reading, upon first incidence of such claim.

And why wasn’t the previous warming streak the result of an upwelling of previously down-dropped, non-CO2 caused, warm water ?  Because today is Special. History does not apply because, for us Gaia-loving left of liberals, today is Special.  We say so, so there !

There is no recourse to the “today is Special” excuse.

Okay. So the AMO ate the heat, but this this quote is the nugget I find interesting.  “Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle…”

Was that an admittance that “Global Warming” estimates are twice what they should be for the 20th century ?  If I read it another way it appears to falsify their own claims. If the Atlantic phase change is responsible for half the Global warming, where did the other half go ? We know that ALL the warming has disappeared, yet this statement would admit that only half of it should be gone.

None of their “settled science” is working out and all they can do is come up with excuses for why their hypothesis both fails and doesn’t reflect reality.  Their models overestimate CO2’s warming effect by a factor of 5~10, so all they can do is move the goal posts to buy more time in order to steal more government funding until their hypothesis is tossed on the trash pile of failed ideas…  Come to think of it, perhaps a more appropriate metaphor than “moving the goal posts” is picking up the entire stadium and dumping it in the ocean…  Their precious CO2 induced “missing heat” isn’t being “buried in the ocean”, it’s getting blown out to space…  CAGW hypothesizes that roughly 1.2 watts/M^2 is being “buried in the oceans”, but Levitus et al puts OHC for the top 2000 meters of oceans at about + 0.09C since 1948, which works out to only 0.4 watts/M^2, which is off by a factor of 3…

What seems to be even more important than the AMO is the PDO, which entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005. The AMO entered its 30-yr warm cycle around 1994, which perfectly explains all the energy being dumped in Arctic and the loss of Arctic sea ice since then. The 30-yr AMO is starting to wind down, which may explain the Arctic sea ice recovery since hitting its 2007 low (the 2012 Arctic minimum was just due to a one-in-50-year Arctic cyclone, not Gloooobal Waaarming; (even NASA/NOAA acknowledge that).

CAGW is seriously in a crash and burn mode… How much longer can they keep this farce going ? It’s getting pathetic !


Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.