The storage of excess heat caused by anthropogenic greenhouse warming in oceans1 is geographically inhomogeneous2–4. Climate models5,6 suggest that the Southern Ocean3,7–9, the North Atlantic3,8, and the mid-latitude North Pacific (MNP) warm up more quickly than other oceans (Fig. 1a). These ocean warming features accompany accelerated ocean currents8,10, poleward shift of storm tracks and westerlies11,12, increased extreme atmospheric rivers13, and altered marine biodiversity patterns14. While the enhanced heat storage in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic has been witnessed in nature, that in the MNP has hardly emerged (Fig. 1b). Indeed, despite significant warming trends in marginal seas along the basin rim, there were weak warming or cooling trends in the central MNP since the 1950s.
The tropical Pacific is among the regions with the weakest heat storage in CMIP6 multi-model mean (MMM) (Fig. 1a). However, the Northwest Tropical Pacific (NWTP) has exhibited the strongest warming rate of the Pacific Ocean during the past decades (Fig. 1b). Increased ocean heat content (OHC) in the NWTP has led to rapid sea-level rise15,16, increasing marine heatwave and coral bleaching events17–19, and altered tropical cyclone behaviors20–22. It also exerted impacts on the downstream marginal seas through western boundary currents23–25 and the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian Throughflow26,27. The Pacific is projected to be the leading reservoir of anthropogenic heat among all oceans by the latter half of the 21st century3. Correctly interpreting the model-observation discrepancies there represents a vital scientific issue.
The contrasts between observations and models indicate either systematic model biases in simulating the externally forced heat storage or substantial impacts by natural variability. Although anthropogenic fingerprints have emerged in many aspects of the ocean3,28,29, natural variability remains influential in the observed OHC changes30,31. For instance, the persistent negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) since 1998 led to heat pile-up in the western tropical Pacific via the strengthened Pacific Walker Circulation32–34. If the model-observation discrepancies can be successfully attributed to natural variability, we shall expect an acceleration of warming in the MNP within the coming decades to catch up with the projected rate.
Here, we set out to quantify the contributions of various processes to the observed North Pacific heat storage pattern, addressing in particular whether natural variability can largely explain the model-observation discrepancy. Our analysis is based on 1) five observational datasets35–39 to characterize the historical heat storage, 2) experiments of a forced ocean model to isolate effects of surface heat fluxes and wind-driven ocean dynamics, and 3) 20 CMIP6 models to estimate anthropogenic fingerprints and when they may emerge (Methods). We demonstrate that surface wind changes arising from phase shifts of the PDO have driven basin-scale heat redistribution through Rossby waves and modulations in western boundary currents. This effect complicates the observed heat storage pattern by creating regional warming/cooling structures that conceal anthropogenic fingerprints. According to model projections, the human-induced heat storage pattern will likely hide until the late-21st century. These results provide useful implications for climate prediction in the North Pacific and marginal seas.
Heat storage in the North Pacific
We begin with more details of the simulated and observed heat storage patterns in the North Pacific during the 1958–2021 period. In the multi-model mean (MMM) of 20 CMIP6 models, consisting of the historical and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 5-8.5 simulations before and after 2014, respectively, the entire MNP is characterized by enhanced 0-2000 m heat storage, in stark contrast to the warming minimum in the western tropical Pacific (Fig. 1a). The observation-based heat storage shows more regional structures (Fig. 1b and Extended Data Fig. 1); for example, there are alternating warming and cooling regions in the North Pacific, particularly in the western basin. The NWTP (e.g., 125°-180°E, 8°-18°N) stands out with a warming maximum, whereas a “warming hole” occurs in the MNP interior with insignificant trends and is surrounded by significant warming trends in marginal seas, such as the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. There is another cooling region near the western boundary of the 18°-30°N, sandwiched by the warming areas of the NWTP and the Kuroshio extension (KE) between 30°-40°N. Cooling trends are also seen beyond the North Pacific, such as the subpolar North Atlantic, southwestern subtropical Pacific, and southwestern subtropical Indian Ocean. CMIP6 MMM also show cooling or slackened warming in these regions (Fig. 1a). Albeit with weaker intensity and smaller spatial range, the subpolar North Atlantic warming hole40 is clearly discernible in CMIP6 MMM. Therefore, models and observations are broadly consonant in all major ocean basins except for the North Pacific. The model-observation discrepancies in the North Pacific heat storage are worthy of in-depth investigation.
We further examine the temporal evolution of OHC in key regions (Fig. 1c, d). CMIP6 models suggest an average heat storage rate of 0.72 ± 0.62 W m− 2 (± indicates the one standard deviation range of 20 models) in the MNP of 155°E-150°W, 40°-55°N, close in magnitude to that of the Southern Ocean (0.68 ± 0.27 W m− 2 in MMM for 55°-33°S). In comparison, a much weaker rate of 0.17 ± 0.08 W m− 2 in the MNP is obtained from observation-based datasets (Fig. 1c; ± indicates the one standard deviation range of 5 datasets). Meanwhile, the NWTP shows enhanced warming of 0.58 ± 0.26 W m− 2 in observations, one order stronger than the simulated rate of 0.06 ± 0.32 W m− 2 in CMIP6 models (Fig. 1d). Interestingly, CMIP6 agrees with observation in the OHC change of the entire North Pacific (120°E-80°W, 0°-60°N), which are 0.33 ± 0.07 W m− 2 and 0.33 ± 0.17 W m− 2, respectively, implying a heat redistribution over the North Pacific in the observed realization relative to the simulated pattern.
The observed OHCs show prominent interannual and decadal variabilities in the MNP and NWTP (Fig. 1c, d). Meanwhile, we notice a large inter-model spread relative to the MMM change in the historical simulation of CMIP6 before 2014, which also indicates significant influence from natural variability. The effect of decadal natural variability is particularly notable from the 1990s through the mid-2010s. During this period, the observed OHC of the NWTP was substantially elevated and exceeded the + 1 standard deviation range of CMIP6 models, while that of the MNP did not rise significantly as models expected. In the following, we examine how decadal natural variability affects the North Pacific heat storage.
Heat redistribution driven by wind changes
To understand how the heat storage pattern is formed, we performed experiments using the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) with a coarse horizontal resolution of 0.5° (Methods) and prescribed reanalysis of atmospheric fields41 as the surface forcing. Despite regional simulation errors, the control run (CTRL) of HYCOM captured broad-scale features of the observed heat storage – the cooling trends in the central MNP and the enhanced warming of the NWTP (Fig. 2a). CTRL also well reproduced the prominent interannual and decadal variabilities (Fig. 2d, e). During the simulation period of 1958–2019, the correlation coefficients between CTRL and IAP are 0.57 and 0.81 for OHCs in the MNP and NWTP, respectively, both significant at the 99% confidence level.
With the aid of HYCOM experiments, we can separate the effects of heat redistribution induced by wind-driven ocean circulation changes and heat uptake through surface heat fluxes in heat storage. The heat-flux run (HTFL) retains changes in surface heat fluxes and keeps wind stress and precipitation invariant (Methods), representing the effect of heat uptake. HTFL produces substantially stronger warming in the MNP than in the tropical Pacific (Fig. 2b) – a pattern resembling CMIP6 MMM (Fig. 1a). This highlights the dominance of heat uptake in shaping the model-projected heat storage pattern. Alternatively, the wind run (WND), retaining changes only in surface wind stress and keeping other forcing fields unchanged (Methods), produces basin-wide cooling trends in the MNP and enhanced warming of the NWTP (Fig. 2c). These wind-driven changes greatly modify the pattern shaped by heat uptake and vitally contribute to the total storage in CTRL. Checking the temporal evolution clearly suggests that while heat fluxes drive quasi-monotonic warming trends in both regions (stronger in MNP), the interannual and decadal fluctuations arise mainly from winds (stronger in NWTP) (Fig. 2d, e). Critically, winds have induced an OHC decrease in the MNP and an abrupt OHC increase in the NWTP since the late 1990s, which greatly altered the overall trends of 1958–2019.
Then, we explore changes in surface winds. Reanalysis datasets41–44 suggest basin-scale trends of anti-cyclonic winds over the North Pacific since 1958 (Fig. 3a). Correspondingly, there are easterly winds and negative Ekman pumping velocity ωE (indicating downwelling; Methods) in the NWTP, which causes convergence of the upper-layer warm water45 and enhances the heat storage there. Meanwhile, we also see westerly winds and positive wE (upwelling) in the eastern tropical Pacific, which might also affect the NWTP through Rossby waves. However, this effect fails to dampen the NWTP warming induced by local wind changes, probably owing to the dissipation of Rossby waves during their transition across the Pacific basin46. The anti-cyclone also involves strengthening westerlies north of 40°N, which slackens the heat storage in the subpolar North Pacific through Ekman upwelling and enhances heat pile-up in the 30°-40°N band through Ekman downwelling.
In CMIP6 MMM, trends of anti-cyclonic winds are confined north of 30°N and westerly trends occupy the entire tropical Pacific (Fig. 3b). Therefore, some key features of the observed wind trend are missed, including the easterlies in the NWTP and westerlies in the subpolar North Pacific. These differences in surface winds, critically accounting for the model-observation discrepancies in heat storage, likely arise from natural variability, given that the CMIP6 MMM is assumed to represent externally forced changes. The PDO, as the leading mode of decadal natural variability in the North Pacific, was in its positive phase during 1977–1997 and then shifted to its negative phase of 1998–2014 (Extended Data Fig. 2). A regression onto the negative PDO index (-PDO) (Fig. 3c) shows easterlies in the NWTP and westerlies in the northeastern subpolar Pacific – key features seen in observation but missed in CMIP6 MMM. The negative PDO also induces positive wE anomalies in the western and central parts of the 18°-30°N band, causing the cooling trends observed near the western boundary (Fig. 1b).
The regression of OHC onto the negative PDO shows some features resembling the observed heat storage, particularly the warming in the NWTP and the 30°-40°N band and cooling in the MNP and the 18°-30°N band (Fig. 3d). The NWTP heat content shows correlation coefficients of -0.42 and − 0.66 with the 8-year low-passed PDO index and the unfiltered December-January-February Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), respectively (Extended Data Fig. 2a). This suggests a strong modulation of natural variability on the NWTP on interannual and decadal timescales, with heat pile-up in the NWTP under negative PDO and La Niña conditions. In the mid-latitudes, the regression cannot explain the observed heat storage. For example, cooling trends occur mainly in the marginal seas in the regression (Fig. 3d) rather than in the MNP interior as in the trend pattern (Fig. 1b); the meridional dipole-like structure observed east of Japan, linked to the strengthening geostrophic transport of the KE jet (Fig. 1b), is replaced by prevailing warming in Fig. 3d. These discrepancies can be reconciled by considering the time lag of oceanic response to wind forcing through planetary wave adjustments47. Lagged regressions show that the strengthened KE east of Japan is established ~ 4 years after the negative peak of PDO, and the central MNP cooling takes ~ 9 years (Fig. 3e, f). The wind-driven OHC anomaly of the MNP, measured by the WND run of HYCOM, lags the PDO index (Extended Data Fig. 2b): the PDO shifted from the negative to the positive phase during the 1970s, and correspondingly there was a warming trend of MNP throughout the 1980s; subsequently, the opposite transition from the late 1990s through ~ 2010 led to a cooling trend of the MNP persisting through the late 2010s.
Regional ocean dynamics
The above analysis points to the vital role of PDO phase shifts in shaping the historical heat storage pattern through wind-driven redistribution. One question arises as to whether models can correctly simulate the PDO-induced variability, which is critical for predicting regional OHC changes and their climatic and environmental impacts in the upcoming decades. This remains a challenging task for the state-of-the-art models. Even with prescribed reanalysis winds, our 0.5° simulation of HYCOM fails to fully reproduce the observed heat storage in the MNP (Fig. 2a); for instance, the simulated cooling in the central MNP is stronger in amplitude, broader in spatial extent, and shifted to lower latitudes in CTRL compared to that in observation. These discrepancies probably arise from complex regional ocean dynamics that are not properly represented by coarse-resolution models - such as the “bimodal” variability of the KE47,48.
In the mid-latitudes, a negative phase of the PDO drives downwelling Rossby waves through negative wE anomalies between 150°-140°W (Fig. 3c). Along the latitudinal band of the KE (e.g., 31°-36°N), these Rossby waves propagate across the Pacific basin to the KE region east of Japan by ~ 4 years, as manifested in satellite-based sea surface height (SSH) anomalies (Fig. 4). These downwelling waves lead to a “stable” state of the KE system characterized by a strengthened KE jet and weakened mesoscale eddy variability47–49, as indicated by the enhanced anticyclonic “southern recirculation” locating south of the jet50,51 (Fig. 4a). The strengthened geostrophic KE jet manifests as a meridional dipole in OHC east of Japan (Fig. 3e). In addition to PDO, the KE is also modulated by the upstream Kuroshio path south of Japan. The PDO shifted to a positive phase in ~ 2014, and correspondingly, an unstable dynamical state of the KE was established in early 2017, as indicated by the weakened southern recirculation (Fig. 4a). However, the occurrence of the Kuroshio large meander in August 2017 - with the Kuroshio following an offshore meandering path in the Shikoku basin south of Japan52 – compelled the KE to switch back to the stable state in late 2017 and remain stable since then48,53. Albeit interrupted in 2017, there has been a persistently stable KE since ~ 2009. This led to an overall trend of the KE toward its stable state during the past decades, given the more unstable KE during the 1980s and 1990s due to the positive PDO phase (Extended Data Fig. 3). This trend manifests as a dipole-like structure in heat storage east of Japan (Fig. 1b). By affecting the overlying storm tracks and large-scale winds, the stable KE also contributed to the cooling in the central MNP and the warming in the eastern basin48,54.
The response of KE to Rossby waves is successfully reproduced by a 0.1° simulation of HYCOM (Methods; Extended Data Fig. 3) that can better resolve the Kuroshio path and mesoscale eddies. As a result, this 0.1° simulation can realistically represent the heat redistribution driven by PDO winds, including the meridional dipole east of Japan with a lag time of ~ 4 years (Fig. 5a) and the cooling in the central MNP with a lag time of ~ 9 years (Fig. 5b) to the negative peak of PDO. This ~ 9-year lag time reflects the slow propagation of upwelling Rossby waves between 40°-55°N (Extended Data Fig. 4) generated by positive wE anomalies near the west coasts of North America (Fig. 3c). There are also detailed discrepancies between the 0.1° simulation and observation in the KE region (Fig. 5a, b compared to Fig. 3e, f), which may result from the lack of feedback between mesoscale eddies and the atmosphere in our standard-alone HYCOM simulation. The eddy-atmosphere feedback has been demonstrated to efficiently damp mesoscale eddies and amend the simulated strength and pathway of the KE55.
Most CMIP6 models are of horizontal resolutions of ~ 50 or ~ 100 km in their ocean components, close to our 0.5° HYCOM simulation. We examine how the PDO-induced heat redistribution is represented in these models. The regression using individual simulations of CMIP6 models (Methods) suggests that CMIP6 models can capture some large-scale features of the PDO-induced changes in surface winds and OHC, particularly in the mid-latitudes (Fig. 5c, d and Extended Data Fig. 5). The cooling of the central MNP is seen at a lag of ~ 9 years, albeit with extended spatial range (Fig. 5d). The PDO’s signatures in the NWTP are weaker in models than in observations, linked to the uncertain tropical Pacific wind changes (Extended Data Fig. 5). This indicates a weaker coupling between the PDO and the tropical Pacific climate in models56. By prescribing the observed (reanalysis) surface winds, the 0.5° HYCOM simulations can well reproduce the response of NWTP changes associated with the PDO winds (Extended Data Fig. 6). Furthermore, the improved fidelity of the 0.1° HYCOM (Fig. 5a, b) relative to the 0.5° HYCOM and CMIP6 models highlights the necessity of fine resolution to account for the complex ocean dynamics involved in heat redistribution.
To further confirm the PDO’s impact, we select 5 model realizations with the simulated PDO showing the highest positive correlations with the observed PDO (+ 5 models) and 5 model realizations showing the highest negative correlation with the observation (-5 models). As such, contrasting the + 5 and − 5 models mimics impacts of the observed PDO phase shifts on the OHC trends since 1958 (Extended Data Fig. 7). The composite of + 5 minus − 5 models reassures that the PDO phase shifts in observation can dampen the heat storage in the MNP and enhance the warming of the NWTP (Extended Data Fig. 7c) through wind-driven heat redistribution (Extended Data Fig. 7d). Therefore, despite unresolved regional structures due to coarse model resolutions, discrepancies between CMIP6 models and observations in the North Pacific heat storage pattern, particularly the contrasts in the NWTP and the central MNP, are primarily explained by natural variability represented by the PDO.
Emergence of anthropogenic heat storage
The above analysis indicates that the emergence of anthropogenic heat storage has been delayed by natural variability in some key regions of the North Pacific and will eventually take place in the future as the emission of greenhouse gases continues. Therefore, it is instructive to estimate the time of emergence (ToE) of anthropogenic heat storage based on CMIP6 simulations (Fig. 6), although we fully acknowledge that such estimation is subject to potential influence from inaccurate ocean dynamics as discussed earlier. Here, we utilize the piControl simulation, historical simulation, and projections under three emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP5-8.5) of 20 CMIP6 models to determine the “signal-to-noise” ratio and compute the ToE for the 0-2000 m OHC change (Methods28,57).
Under the “middle-of-the-road” scenario of SSP2-4.5, a scenario viewed as where social and economic trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns, the anthropogenic heat storage (Fig. 6a) has already emerged (e.g., ToE earlier than the 2020s) in the Southern Oceans between 55°-33°S and the tropical and northern Atlantic. In the North Pacific, the ToE is as early as the 2010s in marginal seas along the basin rim, including the western coasts of North America, the Bering Sea, the Okhotsk Sea (most of which is shallower than 2000 m and not estimated for OHC and ToE), and the Japan Sea (Fig. 6a). By contrast, anthropogenic signals have not emerged by present (the 2020s) in the basin interior and even until the 2050s in the central MNP, the KE, and the NWTP where we see obvious model-observation discrepancies. The ToEs under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios are similar in spatial distribution to those under SSP2-4.5 but postponed and advanced in average time (Extended Data Fig. 8), respectively.
In marginal seas of the North Pacific, such as the Bering Sea and the eastern boundary coasts, anthropogenic heat storage has already been emerging. The multi-model median ToE is during the 2010s and 2020s in these regions regardless of the emission scenario (Fig. 6b, c). By contrast, the central MNP, KE, and NWTP regions show delayed ToEs and relatively high sensitivities to the emission scenario (Fig. 6d-f). Under the SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5 scenarios, anthropogenic heat storage is projected to emerge in the latter half of this century in these regions, such as the 2080s in the KE region. Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, the ToE is as early as the 2040s in the central MNP, the 2050s in the KE, and the 2060s in the NWTP. To summarize, despite uncertainties arising from inter-model spread, the North Pacific heat storage is projected to remain under a significant impact of natural variability until the late 21st century, except for marginal seas along the basin rim. Therefore, we expect that the heat storage pattern of the North Pacific will alter but probably still differ from that projected by climate models in the upcoming several decades.