The paper by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis and Gregory C. Johnson entitled “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” has appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. This paper has already been discussed on Climate Science (see and see).
This Climate Science weblog is written to alert readers to where the data can be accessed to explore this issue further, as well as look at the latest data as it becomes available. This information is available from these sites [see, see and see].
There is also the issue as to how this important article has been covered in the media. The NASA Press release is available (see). This press release is entitled “Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming ‘Speed Bump’”. An excerpt from the report states,
“The recent changes in ocean temperature run deep. A small amount of cooling was detected at the ocean’s surface, consistent with global measurements of sea-surface temperature. The maximum amount of cooling was at a depth of about 1,300 feet, but substantial cooling was still observed at 2,500 feet, and the cooling appears to extend deeper.
Lyman said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth. ‘Further work will be necessary to solve this cooling mystery,’ he said.”
This mystery is a critical question, as it is not known if this is just a “speed bump”, or indicates that we have a poorer understanding of the climate system, even in terms of global average radiative heating, than has been advocated by the international climate assessments such as the IPCC.
The way this new research result has been communicated to the public is also quite informative with respect to the media’s perspective on the climate change issue. One news article is headlined “Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming” . This is not only a self-contradiction, but scientifically incorrect. Ocean cooling indicates “global cooling”! (see)
.
A search on google shows that there is remarkably little media coverage on this observation of cooling. What there is understates the significance of the finding that over 20% of the heat gained since the mid 1950s were lost in just two years! The reason for this large negative radiative imbalance in the Earth’s climate system is a “mystery, but it certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.
I saw the NASA press release a few days ago - seems that someone doesn’t want H L Mencken’s ‘Hobgoblin’ to catch a cold.
Comment by Paul Biggs — September 29, 2006 @ 9:26 am
The doom and gloom, “disasterous global warming” meme is very difficult to overcome, even within the NASA PR office!
Comment by Steve Sadlov — September 29, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
This graphic seems to show cooling in the Pacific, measured by a totally different method: http://npal.ucsd.edu/thermometry/index.htm
Comment by Russ — September 29, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Russ- This is an excellent source of information. The plot at http://npal.ucsd.edu/thermometry/images/kauaik.jpg
is very informative. Thank you for sharing!
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — September 29, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
Comment by Joern Abatz — September 29, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
Whilst ‘trawling’ the net, I came across this rather good paper, which offers a different take on regional temperatures, with a specific focus on one current.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3914&lang=no
I am not suggesting that it necessarily contradicts the Lyman finding, rather that it demonstrates the complexity of the systems involved and the difficulty involved in extrapolation. What it certainly does is support Roger’s argument about regional as opposed to global analysis.
On this second subject, and apologies if it is slightly off-topic, I am curious as to why, rather than relying almost exclusively on GCMs, there isn’t an international effort to ‘intertwine’ several of the excellent regional models which various national agencies around the world are running, thereby satisfying the requirement of specificity and the need to consider the ‘bigger picture’. Surely it isn’t beyond the scope of climatology to do this, if the desire is there? This idea is very much a speculation, so experienced feedback would be much appreciated on its value or plausibility.
Comment by Fergus Brown — September 30, 2006 @ 6:22 am
Re: Joern Abatz comment…By what mechanism would the global oceans abruptly begin transmitting significantly more energy to the high latitude ice caps?
Comment by Jim Clarke — September 30, 2006 @ 6:48 am
Fergus - Thank you for the excellent url.
It is consistent with the Lyman et al paper as they show this warnming in thier analysis.
On the use of the regional models, they have been used to downscale from the multi-decadal global climate models. However, as we show in
Castro, C.L., R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Leoncini, 2005: Dynamical downscaling: Assessment of value retained and added using the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS). J. Geophys. Res. - Atmospheres, 110, No. D5, D05108, doi:10.1029/2004JD004721.
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-276.pdf
there are serious problems with this approach. Our study has since be confirmed by other modeling groups, and I will post on this when I can.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — September 30, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
I have just finished reading this article by Dr. Robert Stevenson. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html My question is “How do global warming models explain the physics behind the warming of the oceans?”
Comment by Jim Powell — October 1, 2006 @ 8:49 am
Jim- Thank you for the url for the very interesting article.
Your question is an excellent one. I have not seen a specific discussion in the papers with the multi-decadal global climate model results, but they must include the fluxes of heat across the ocean-atmosphere-river-ice calving system as well as phase changes of water within the ocean system (sea ice melting/freezing). The interfacial fluxes include turbulent latent heat effects from evaporation, precipitation (rain and snow), solar input into the ocean, long wave radiative emissions from the ocean surface, and fresh water inflow from rivers.
A quantification of how well the models represent each of these fluxes should be a priority. Readers who are aware of such specific comparisons with data over the last several decades are invited to submit comments as a follow up to s comment.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — October 1, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Concerning the observation in paper “Recent cooling of the upper ocean�, the lead author Lyman said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth. This statement raises the question whether the author is sufficiently aware of the absolute dominance of cold ocean water and that any loss of heat
Comment by Mike Kauso — October 1, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Mike,
A “purely internal oceanic affair”? Let me introduce you to the field of study called “thermodynamics”. There are no such thing as an “internal affair” in any real life system. First, let’s look at the system: earth, ocean, atmosphere, space, sun. There is heat transfer between all of these components. The ocean may store a lot of heat, compared to the atmosphere, but it is but a thin layer over the earth’s crust, which is a thin layer over the earth’s hot interior. The mass of the earth’s crust Continental crust is only 0.374% of the Earth’s mass (5.9742×10 ^24 kg), but the mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 × 10^18 tonnes, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. So, the ocean mass is only about 6 % of the crust mass.
The Sun is, however, the primary heating agent in this system. The principle of Occam indicates that the simplest answer is most likely correct. The amount of energy coming from the sun dwarfs the heat reservoir of the oceans. The sun is not restricted to heating the atmosphere only. The Sun’s energy directly heats (or cools) the oceans and the earth (land).
Dr. Vezier of the U of Ottawa has written a paper that is consistent with this common sense.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/veizer2.pdf
The Sun has been at an 8000 year high. This most likely is the cause of the high ocean temperatures between 1998 and 2004. Anyone who doubts that the sun is the cause need only look at the graphs from the NPAL acoustic thermometry to see that it goes up and down with summer and winter.
Comment by Gunnar — October 2, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Re #4 and #12, the low in 1997 coincides with solar minimum and the high coincides with the maximum of solar cycle 23. The next solar minimum may not be until 2008, so there may be a couple more years of cooling to come.
Comment by David Archibald — October 3, 2006 @ 3:20 am
Gunnar, your demonstration and comparition of ‘masses’ is impressive. But have you ever calculated what happens in a desert area like Sahara when the sun would not rise one morning. The bedouines would start freezing to death in the afternoon. That shows, the earth crust is big and supports warming the earth only a short time.
Comment by Mike Kauso — October 3, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
I haven’t*, but I’ll take your word for it. Especially since it supports my point: The sun is by far the dominant input into the system. Anyone who looks at the ocean thermometry can see that the oceans are not a closed system like you claimed, since the temperatures goes up and down with the sun. It also supports the wider point that any model that doesn’t very accurately model the energy from the sun is deeply flawed. That means considering output from the sun, energy from different frequencies, solar flares, effect of sun spots, earth orbit variations, earth wobble, earth angle variations, eclipses and much more.
* However, although I’m an electrical engineer, I have analyzed and solved a thermodynamics problem with 20 differential equations in 20 unknowns, as part of a research project for a thermodynamics professor.
>> That shows, the earth crust is big and supports warming the earth only a short time.
Not sure what to make of this, since it’s somewhat non-sensical. However, reading between the lines, I think you mean: the earths’ crust is big and supports warming the -atmosphere- for only a short time. This is correct, but again, it supports the view that thermodynamic analysis is the best way to model the system, if temperature is what your interested in. Sounds crazy, but true.
For example, with knowledge of TD, it’s easy to see why the desert cools down dramatically minus the sun. Yes, the atmosphere is in contact with the crust, but the crust is so massive, the atmosphere doesn’t heat the crust much. The sun heated the atmosphere yesterday, but today, the sun vanished. The crust is in contact with the atmosphere and heats it somewhat. However, the atmosphere is also in contact with space. The amount of heat transfer is proportional to the delta temperature. There is a big delta to space.
However, any scientific analysis has to include the effect of the earth and the oceans. For example, I’ve been to the grand canyon in the middle of winter. Freezing cold at the rim. At the bottom, summer temperatures. For this reason, plate tectonics can affect out climate. As magma is exposed on the ocean floor, a large amount of energy is transferred to the ocean. The water temperature may only change by a few tenths of a degree, but it’s energy that’s important. Any model that tries to model atmospheric temperatures only, without considering the effect of sun, space, earth, oceans, eclipses, volcanoes, solar flares, orbits etc is just a waste of time.
bottom line: in thermodynamics, there is no such thing as an “internal ocean affair”.
Comment by Gunnar — October 4, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Layman’s paper (myself) discussing how the earth is already at it’s maximum temperature — http://global_warming.s3.amazonaws.com/maximum%20temperature.pdf
Comment by Ian — January 3, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
[...] Pielke was even concerned that what little media coverage the paper got did not adequately address its supposed implications: A search on google shows that there is remarkably little media coverage on this observation of cooling. What there is understates the significance of the finding that over 20% of the heat gained since the mid 1950s were lost in just two years! The reason for this large negative radiative imbalance in the Earth’s climate system is a “mystery, but it certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings. [...]
Pingback by The Great Ocean Cooling Swindle « Reasic — April 20, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
The comments in the “Great Ocean Cooling Swindle” on the Lyman et al correction fail to comment on the significance of the absence of warming in the upper ocean which is still a result of their corrections.
As repeatedly stated on Climate Science, the concept of global warming promulgated by the IPCC and others requires a more-or-less continuous accumulation of Joules. For the last several years this has not occurred.
The text in the weblogs cited in #7 to this issue fails to discuss this requirement for an accumulation of heat.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 20, 2007 @ 3:39 pm