Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Projected ocean warming constrained by the ocean observational record


The ocean absorbs most of the excess heat from anthropogenic climate change, causing global ocean warming and sea-level rise with a series of consequences for human society and marine ecosystems. While there have been ongoing efforts to address large uncertainties in future projections, to date the projected ocean warming has not been constrained by the historical observations. Here, we show that the observed ocean warming over the well-sampled Argo period (2005–2019) can constrain projections of future ocean warming and that the upper-tail projections from latest climate models with high climate sensitivities are unrealistically large. By 2081–2100, under the high-emission scenario, the upper 2,000 m of the ocean is likely (>66% probability) to warm by 1,546–2,170 ZJ relative to 2005–2019, corresponding to 17–26 cm sea-level rise from thermal expansion. Further narrowing uncertainties requires maintenance of the ocean observing system to extend the observational record.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Ocean heat content changes in observations and climate-model simulations.
Fig. 2: Contributions of the individual forcing to historical ocean warming and the association between historical changes and future projection.
Fig. 3: Emergent constraints on the global OHC and thermosteric sea-level projections under the high-emission scenario.

Data availability

The CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate-model outputs are available at All observational datasets used in this study are publicly available online (links are listed in Supplementary Table 2).

Code availability

The code used to generate the main figures and to derive the constrained projections based on the emergent constraint methodology is available from a Figshare repository64.


  1. 1.

    Hansen, J. et al. Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308, 1431–1435 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    von Schuckmann, K. et al. Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go? Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 2013–2041 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Von Schuckmann, K. et al. An imperative to monitor Earth’s energy imbalance. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 138–144 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Meyssignac, B. et al. Measuring global ocean heat content to estimate the Earth energy imbalance. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 432 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group Global sea-level budget 1993–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 1551–1590 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rignot, E., Jacobs, S., Mouginot, J. & Scheuchl, B. Ice-shelf melting around Antarctica. Science 341, 266–270 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Trenberth, K. E., Cheng, L., Jacobs, P., Zhang, Y. & Fasullo, J. Hurricane Harvey links to ocean heat content and climate change adaptation. Earth’s Future 6, 730–744 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bindoff, N. L. et al. in Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) Ch. 5 (IPCC, 2019).

  9. 9.

    Durack, P. J., Gleckler, P. J., Landerer, F. W. & Taylor, K. E. Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 999–1005 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Roemmich, D. et al. Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 240–245 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wijffels, S., Roemmich, D., Monselesan, D., Church, J. A. & Gilson, J. Ocean temperatures chronicle the ongoing warming of Earth. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 116–118 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Johnson, G. C. et al. Ocean heat content. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, S140–S144 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Church, J. A. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 13 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  14. 14.

    Gregory, J. M. et al. The Flux-Anomaly-Forced Model Intercomparison Project (FAFMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigation of sea-level and ocean climate change in response to CO2 forcing. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3993–4017 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Domingues, C. M. et al. Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise. Nature 453, 1090–1093 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gleckler, P. J. et al. Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 524–529 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Slangen, A. B. A., Church, J. A., Zhang, X. & Monselesan, D. Detection and attribution of global mean thermosteric sea level change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5951–5959 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gleckler, P. J., Durack, P. J., Stouffer, R. J., Johnson, G. C. & Forest, C. E. Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 394–398 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cheng, L., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z. & Trenberth, K. E. How fast are the oceans warming? Science 363, 128–129 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jevrejeva, S., Palanisamy, H. & Jackson, L. P. Global mean thermosteric sea level projections by 2100 in CMIP6 climate models. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 014028 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mengel, M. et al. Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2597–2602 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tokarska, K. B., Hegerl, G. C., Schurer, A. P., Ribes, A. & Fasullo, J. T. Quantifying human contributions to past and future ocean warming and thermosteric sea level rise. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 074020 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tokarska, K. B., Hegerl, G. C., Schurer, A. P., Forster, P. M. & Marvel, K. Observational constraints on the effective climate sensitivity from the historical period. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034043 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Forster, P. M., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M. & Smith, C. J. Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 7–10 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zelinka, M. D. et al. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085782 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Stevens, B., Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. & Webb, M. J. Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity. Earths Future 4, 512–522 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Newsom, E., Zanna, L., Khatiwala, S. & Gregory, J. M. The influence of warming patterns on passive ocean heat uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088429 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C. & Klein, S. Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  30. 30.

    Church, J. A., White, N. J. & Arblaster, J. M. Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content. Nature 438, 74–77 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jiménez-de-la-Cuesta, D. & Mauritsen, T. Emergent constraints on Earth’s transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s global warming. Nat. Geosci. 12, 902–905 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nijsse, F. J., Cox, P. M. & Williamson, M. S. Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11, 737–750 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Tokarska, K. B. et al. Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz9549 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Gregory, J. M. & Andrews, T. Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3911–3920 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Andrews, T. et al. Accounting for changing temperature patterns increases historical estimates of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 8490–8499 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Cheng, L. et al. Evolution of ocean heat content related to ENSO. J. Clim. 32, 3529–3556 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Wu, Q., Zhang, X., Church, J. A. & Hu, J. ENSO-related global ocean heat content variations. J. Clim. 32, 45–68 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brown, P. T., Li, W., Li, L. & Ming, Y. Top-of-atmosphere radiative contribution to unforced decadal global temperature variability in climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5175–5183 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Palmer, M. D. & McNeall, D. J. Internal variability of Earth’s energy budget simulated by CMIP5 climate models. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034016 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Johnson, G. C. & Birnbaum, A. N. As El Niño builds, Pacific Warm Pool expands, ocean gains more heat. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 438–445 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Durack, P. J. et al. Ocean warming: from the surface to the deep in observations and models. Oceanography 31, 41–51 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gregory, J. M., Andrews, T., Ceppi, P., Mauritsen, T. & Webb, M. J. How accurately can the climate sensitivity to CO2 be estimated from historical climate change? Clim. Dyn. 54, 129–157 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Menary, M. B. et al. Aerosol-forced AMOC changes in CMIP6 historical simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088166 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Smith, C. et al. Energy budget constraints on the time history of aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Sherwood, S. C. et al. An assessment of Earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Rev. Geophys. 58, e2019RG000678 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Johnson, G. C. & Lyman, J. M. Warming trends increasingly dominate global ocean. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 757–761 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Seroussi, H. et al. ISMIP6 Antarctica: a multi-model ensemble of the Antarctic ice sheet evolution over the 21st century. Cryosphere 14, 3033–3070 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Zika, J. D., Gregory, J. M., McDonagh, E. L., Marzocchi, A. & Clement, L. Recent water mass changes reveal mechanisms of ocean warming. J. Clim. 34, 3461–3479 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Roemmich, D. et al. On the future of Argo: a global, full-depth, multi-disciplinary array. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 439 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Winton, M. et al. Climate sensitivity of GFDL’s CM4.0. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS001838 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Sen Gupta, A., Jourdain, N. C., Brown, J. N. & Monselesan, D. Climate drift in the CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 26, 8597–8615 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Li, H. et al. Development of a global gridded Argo data set with Barnes successive corrections. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 866–889 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gaillard, F., Reynaud, T., Thierry, V., Kolodziejczyk, N. & Von Schuckmann, K. In situ–based reanalysis of the global ocean temperature and salinity with ISAS: variability of the heat content and steric height. J. Clim. 29, 1305–1323 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hosoda, S., Ohira, T. & Nakamura, T. A monthly mean dataset of global oceanic temperature and salinity derived from Argo float observations. JAMSTEC Rep. Res. Dev. 8, 47–59 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Roemmich, D. & Gilson, J. The 2004–2008 mean and annual cycle of temperature, salinity, and steric height in the global ocean from the Argo Program. Prog. Oceanogr. 82, 81–100 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Argo Float Data and Metadata from Global Data Assembly Centre (Argo GDAC) (SEANOE, 2000);

  57. 57.

    Cheng, L. et al. Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601545 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Ishii, M. et al. Accuracy of global upper ocean heat content estimation expected from present observational data sets. SOLA 13, 163–167 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Levitus, S. et al. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L10603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zhang, X. & Church, J. A. Sea level trends, interannual and decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L21701 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Cox, P. M. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C. & Williamson, M. S. Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability. Nature 553, 319–322 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Charles, E., Meyssignac, B. & Ribes, A. Observational constraint on greenhouse gas and aerosol contributions to global ocean heat content changes. J. Clim. 33, 10579–10591 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lyu, K., Zhang, X. & Church, J. A. Projected ocean warming constrained by the ocean observational record: supplementary metadata. Figshare (2021).

Download references


This study was supported by the Centre for Southern Hemisphere Oceans Research (CSHOR), jointly funded by the Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (QNLM, China) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO, Australia). J.A.C. was also funded by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project funding scheme (project DP190101173). This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI Australia), an NCRIS enabled capability supported by the Australian Government. We thank Q. Wu for helpful discussions. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme, which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted CMIP. We thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 1) for producing and making available their model output, the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) for archiving the data and providing access, and the multiple funding agencies who support CMIP and ESGF. Argo data were collected and made freely available by the International Argo Program and the national programmes that contribute to it (, The Argo Program is part of the Global Ocean Observing System.

Author information




J.A.C. initiated the idea of this study. K.L. carried out the analysis under the guidance of J.A.C. and X.Z. and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to designing the study, interpreting the results and revising the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kewei Lyu or John A. Church.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Dewi Le Bars and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Relationship between the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and global OHC projections.

Scatterplot of projected 0–2000 m global OHC changes (2081–2100 relative to 2005–2019) against the ECS values from the CMIP6 (black) and CMIP5 (grey) models. The linear fits are shown although their relationship might not be expected to be linear31,32. (a) high-emission scenarios; (b) medium-emission scenarios; (c) low-emission scenarios.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Impact of the decadal ENSO variability on the observed near-global OHC change over the Argo period.

a, The Niño 3.4 index (black) and its linear fit (red) over 2005–2019. b, The near-global OHC time series over 2005–2019 from the Scripps Argo product (black) and its linear fit (red). The magenta line shows the multiple linear regression based on both the linear trend and the Niño 3.4 index (see Methods).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Emergent constraints on the global OHC projections under medium- and low-emission scenarios.

Scatterplot of projected 0–2000 m global OHC changes (2081–2100 relative to 2005–2019) against simulated 0–2000m near-global OHC changes over 2005–2019 from the CMIP6 ensemble. (a) medium-emission scenario SSP2-4.5; (b) low-emission scenario SSP1-2.6. Triangles are for the individual CMIP6 models (labelled by letters defined in Supplementary Table 1), with colours indicating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range. The solid black line shows the linear regression across the CMIP6 ensemble and the dashed black lines show the prediction errors for the linear fit (68% confidence intervals). The vertical magenta line shows the observed trend over 2005–2019 averaged from eight observational datasets after correcting for decadal ENSO effect. The dashed magenta lines show the ±1 standard deviation uncertainty range in the observed trend, considering both spread between different datasets and uncertainty due to internal variability (see Methods).

Extended Data Fig. 4 The probability density function (PDF) for the linear regression from the model-derived emergent relationship and its combination with the observational estimate.

a, The PDF for the linear regression between projected 0–2000 m global OHC changes (2081–2100 relative to 2005–2019) under SSP5-8.5 and simulated 0–2000 m near-global OHC changes over 2005–2019 from 28 CMIP6 models as shown in Fig. 3a. b, The product of the linear regression PDF and the PDF from the observational estimate. The solid black line shows the linear regression across the model ensemble and the dashed black lines show the prediction error for the linear fit (68% confidence intervals). The vertical red lines in (b) show the observed trend over 2005–2019 after correcting for decadal ENSO effect and its uncertainty range.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The histogram of the residuals for the linear regression in Fig. 3a and the fitted probability distributions.

(black) normal distribution; (blue) logistic distribution; (brown) t location-scale distribution.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Emergent relationship between the simulated ocean warming over 2005–2019 and the projected future ocean warming from the CMIP5 ensemble under the high-emission scenario.

Scatterplot of projected 0–2000 m global OHC changes (2081–2100 relative to 2005–2019) against simulated 0–2000 m near-global OHC changes over 2005–2019 from 23 CMIP5 models under RCP8.5. Grey triangles are for the individual CMIP5 models. The solid black line shows the linear regression across the model ensemble and the dashed black lines show the prediction error for the linear fit (68% confidence intervals).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Emergent relationship between the simulated ocean warming over 2005–2019 and the projected future warming in four ocean basins under the high-emission scenario.

a, Southern Ocean (30°–90°S); b, Indian Ocean (20°–120°E, 30°N–30°S); c, Pacific Ocean (120°E–80°W, 70°N–30°S); d, Atlantic Ocean (80°W–20°E, 70°N–30°S). Triangles are for the individual CMIP6 models (labelled by letters defined in Supplementary Table 1), with colours indicating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range. The solid black line shows the linear regression across the model ensemble and the dashed black lines show the prediction errors for the linear fit (68% confidence intervals).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyu, K., Zhang, X. & Church, J.A. Projected ocean warming constrained by the ocean observational record. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 834–839 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links