The study hopes its observations will help the search for ways to ‘reduce the large and significant biases between models and observations’. The article refers to a ‘mismatch between scientific knowledge and the actual ocean environment’.
– – –
Ocean motion plays a key role in the Earth’s energy and climate systems. In recent decades, ocean science has made great strides in providing general estimates of large-scale ocean motion, says Phys.org.
However, there are still many dynamic mechanisms that are not fully understood or resolved.
Prof. Su Fenzhen’s team at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and their collaborators found that humans know less than 5% of the ocean currents at depths of 1,000 meters below the sea surface, with important implications for modeled predictions of climate change and carbon sequestration.
Their findings were published in Nature Communications.
The researchers used a displacement dataset of 842,421 observations produced from Argo floats from 2001 to 2020. Lagrangian velocities were computed near 1,000-meter depth, and several accuracy indicators were used to compare Argo float velocities with simulated values from global circulation models.
Results showed that only 3.8% of the mid-depth oceans can be considered as accurately modeled.
“An important finding is that circulation energy in almost all of the world’s oceans is underestimated. This is probably due to the poor resolution of high-frequency dynamics in ocean circulation models and the inadequacy of current solutions to sub-grid processes,” said Prof. Su.
. . .
The study highlights the nature and extent of the mismatch between scientific knowledge and the actual ocean environment.
It can help guide recommendations for more intensive observational and more accurate predictions to reduce the large and significant biases between models and observations.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Why do they need to produce computer games, sorry models, of the deep ocean? Is it because they are trying to find the missing heat for the global warming scam and they think it might be hiding in the oceans?
They would be much better to stick with real time observations that way they get the truth even though they don’t have to play with computers.
“Results showed that only 3.8% of the mid-depth oceans can be considered as accurately modeled.”
A remarkably high level of precision there, why not 3.7% or 3.9%?
I call BS!
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
with important implications for modeled predictions of climate change
Anyone in the IPCC or the rest of the climate-obsessed jokers listening?