Sentences with phrase «c warming of the ocean»

Not exact matches

It also eliminates much of the uncertainty surrounding potentially ill effects; whereas various mathematical models may disagree about when and at what concentrations Arctic Ocean sea ice disappears, they all agree that at roughly 3 degrees C of warming, the far north will be ice - free.

As Stephen C. Riser and M. Susan Lozier note in their February 2013 Scientific American article, «Rethinking the Gulf Stream,» «A comparison of the Argo data with ocean observations from the 1980s, carried out by Dean Roemmich and John Gilson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, shows that the upper few hundred meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.2 degree C in the past 20 years.

«There is an event documented in sediments from 55 million years ago called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, during which (allegedly) several thousand Gton C of methane was released to the atmosphere and ocean, driving 5 ° C warming of the intermediate depth ocean.

The East Pacific Ocean (90S - 90N, 180 - 80W) has not warmed since the start of the satellite - based Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature dataset, yet the multi-model mean of the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) simulations of sea surface temperatures say, if they were warmed by anthropogenic forcings, they should have warmed approximately 0.42 to 0.44 deg C.

South of Spitzbergen, the oceans have been ice free the past 2 winters, reason being, the warm waters from the Gulf Stream are travelling further north, and closer to the ocean surface, only 25 meters at the last measurement, The ocean temperature has been +2 C instead of -2 C.

Despite continuous injection of a large amount of very cold (− 15 ◦ C) water in these pure freshwater experiments, substantial portions of the ocean interior become warmer.

Well in the Southern (Antarctic) Ocean, a warming of 0.03 C per decade and in other ocean abysses, a warming of 0.003 C per deOcean, a warming of 0.03 C per decade and in other ocean abysses, a warming of 0.003 C per deocean abysses, a warming of 0.003 C per decade.

By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr - 1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global - mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon - cycle feedback.

At 4 W / m ^ 2 and about 1 billion cubic km of ocean to warm by 10 C, I think that comes to 600 or 700 years.

5 Earth's surface and deep ocean waters warmed by ∼ 5 ◦ C, of which part may have oc - curred prior to the CIE.. However, few records document continental climatic trendsand changes in seasonality have not been documented.

Yes, the oceans are warming but these trends are 10 % to 20 % of the predicted surface warming trend of about 0.2 C per decade.

All siding with its infinite growth paradigm, so I'm not surprised to see you writing counter-pieces to the harsh truth, which, as it stands, is that we have a pretty much dead and severely warming ocean, daily record - breaking jet - stream related weather incidents, which in turn are caused by polar temperature anomalies of +20 C as of late.

Some really interesting recent weather events in the High Arctic have shown me the reality of a warmer polar region, snow flakes do not melt in an ocean -1.5 C cold, and ice does not form when its -6 C outside.

I then applied a 1 watt / sq meter forcing to a 10 meter thick slab of ocean and he atmosphere above to get a warming of 0.6 C per year.

The current energy imbalance at the surface (as demonstrated by the increasing heat content of the oceans) implies there is at least a further 0.5 deg C surface warming in the «pipeline».

The surface heat capacity C (j = 0) was set to the equivalent of a global layer of water 50 m deep (which would be a layer ~ 70 m thick over the oceans) plus 70 % of the atmosphere, the latent heat of vaporization corresponding to a 20 % increase in water vapor per 3 K warming (linearized for current conditions), and a little land surface; expressed as W * yr per m ^ 2 * K (a convenient unit), I got about 7.093.

If we assume that delivering energy volcanically is associated with about 1 % of the energy beg released as potential / kinetic energy, this means that a 1 C warming (sufficient energy to melt 1.25 % of the ice cover) would be associated with a potential / kinetic energy equivalent to lifting the ocean bed some 4 meters, which would generate an enormous tsunami.

If the oceans aren't «warmed» by LW radiation then how come they are not significantly cooler than we see, closer to the -18 C of a non ghg world?

There is so little understanding about how the ocean parses its response to forcings by 1) suppressing (local convective scale) deep water formation where excessive warming patterns are changed, 2) enhancing (local convective scale) deep water formation where the changed excessive warming patterns are co-located with increased evaporation and increased salinity, and 3) shifting favored deep water formation locations as a result of a) shifted patterns of enhanced warming, b) shifted patterns of enhanced salinity and c) shifted patterns of circulation which transport these enhanced ocean features to critically altered destinations.

This single pattern has a long - term global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade and an oscillation due to ocean cycles (http://bit.ly/nfQr92) of 0.5 deg C every 30 years as shown in the following two graphs.

The oceans would appear to need to warm up by about 0.1 C to match that of previous years.

Since the oceans are the main thermal energy storage of the Earth and they happen to be at ~ 3.89 C, and they receive the vast majority of their energy from the sun in the tropics, what total warming that can be expected from a doubling of CO2 is total dependent on the oceans.

We have estimated an increase of 24 X 10 ^ 22 J repre - senting a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0 — 2000 m layer of the World Ocean.

There is some correlation between changes in temperature due to global warming in different parts of the ocean, so there might be some reduction below 0.1 C, but how much and how has it been measured?

If that is indeed the case then any apparent warming of 0.02 C as shown in graphs 1 and 2 is just noise and there is no evidence of any warming of the Oceans in the ARGO data.

The surface temperatures may have stagnated, but the oceans have inexorably continued warming at a rate of 0.016 C per decade.

Year 2013: surface skin has wamed a tiny fraction of 1C (not shown for comparison simplicity) and ocean mixing will not permit it to balance within 0.003 C at the sub-skin (maybe also ocean happens to mix heat down a tad faster due to a natural variation), now will only let 1.441 mm to < several tens - to - hundreds of metres > depth warm by 0.69462 C instead of prior 0.697 C (ocean - air interface at 0.70000 C).

-- Ocean warming is being reported in the tiniest units possible (joules)-- a unit that means nothing to the general public, but sounds «big» (because there's a bunch of them); if it were reported in degrees C (which people can relate to), the warming would be a few thousandths of a degree per year

If the 1.441 mm depth had warmed by 0.700 C same as the ocean - air interface then oceans would gain no heat, but the massive colder oceans below will only let 1.441 mm to < several tens - to - hundreds of metres > depth warm by 0.697 C and only when the entire ocean has warmed by 0.700 C in a few thousand years will it let that 1.441 mm depth warm the final 0.003 C and stop heat gain with 4,100 ZettaJoules of heat having been added to the oceans, enough to melt 13,666,666 cubic kilometres of ice.

As of now the consensus estimate of ocean warming is total basin up by 0.02 C per decade.

temperature: 1,000 m depth temperature = 5C thermal conductivity of seawater 0.58 W / mK ocean - air interface = 17.000 C 1.441 mm depth temperature = 17.400 C (the warmest spot in the ocean depth though the «few metres» of depth below it is only a miniscule bit colder, all warmed by Sun SWR) this top 1.441 mm depth is the «skin» and «sub-skin» 100m depth temperature certain in range 16.090 C to 17.400 C but virtually certain > 17C because of mixing top ~ 90m temperature gradient of top 1.441 mm of ocean is 277.6 Celsius / metre By conductivity, temperature gradient pushes 161.00 w / m ** 2 up from 1.441 mm depth to ocean - air interface which precisely removes the Sun's 161 w / m ** 2 going into the top few metres depth and leads to no ocean warming.

Your political views have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical facts of increasing CO2 due to our emissions, the warming that will cause (~ 1.1 C / doubling), the feedbacks that will occur (to a total of about 3C / doubling), crop movements, sea level rise, ocean acidification, precipitation changes, etc..

Yes, while the oceans surfaces are apparently in a «cool phase», the land is in a warming phase of roughly 0.3 C per decade.

Under a moderate emissions scenario (RCP4.5), where greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere stabilise around the 2050s, ocean temperatures in the study area would be around 1.4 C warmer than a baseline period of the 2000s.

The data indicate the sea surface temperatures of the tropical oceans warmed at a not - very - alarming rate of 0.11 deg C / decade, while the models indicate that, if the surfaces of the tropical oceans were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, they should have warmed at almost 2 times that rate, at 0.22 deg C / decade.

# 24 «If CO2 emissions continue on their current trends, earth is on course to be 2.6 - 4.8 C (4.7 - 8.6 F) degrees warmer and the oceans could be up to a meter higher by the end of this century.

Because of the land mass choke points that reduce northward ocean flow, it takes longer to cool the oceans in the NH which is why the average SST of the NH is about 3 C warmer than the SH.

The mixed layer of the ocean is currently warming at 0.05 C / decade.

(Fingerprint studies draw conclusions about human causation that can be deduced from: (a) how the Earth warms in the upper and lower atmosphere, (b) warming in the oceans, (c) night - time vs day - time temperature increases, (d) energy escaping from the upper atmosphere versus energy trapped, (e) isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere and coral that distinguish fossil CO2 from non-fossil CO2, (f) the height of the boundary between the lower and upper atmosphere, and (g) atmospheric oxygen levels decrease as CO2 levels increase.

According to Levitus et al 2012 the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters have warmed by about 0.1 C between 1955 — 2010.

To quote «Proof is obtained by considering the contrary: ice sheet forcing approximately 3W / m ^ 2 and a 5 kyr timing gap between forcing and response, as appears to be the case at Termination IV (figure 2c), is 15,000 W yr / m ^ 2, enough to warm the upper kilometre of the ocean by approximately 160 C» (pdf page 7) This is his justification for modifying the data - not my «characterization» of what he said.

c) That the Arctic has only warmed because of AGW and not as a side effect of warmer ocean water flowing into the Arctic Circle.

With earth melt 1.4 x 10 ^ 21 kg ice is 334 kJ / kg times 1.4 x 10 ^ 21 which is 46.7 x x 10 ^ 22 KJ So to heat ice from 273 K to 274 K require more joules than the atmosphere of Venus requires to heat from 20 K to 737 K. To warm the ocean from 276 [3 C] to 13 C Requires 10 times 4.2 times 1.4 x 10 ^ 21 which is 5.88 x 10 ^ 22

The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09 C degrees over 55 years.

This suggests three levels of skepticism even in Muller's mind: a) global warming which in the context means the land temperature record (not the ocean heat as Pielke Sr would prefer) b) its human causes (where Judith Curry also parts company with Muller) and c) what can and should be done about b).

And study authors found that 2 C to 5 C warming of local ocean waters with somewhat greater local air temperature increases was capable of flooding these basins in stages — forcing Totten's glacial ice to flow out into the Southern Ocean and provide significant contributions to sea level ocean waters with somewhat greater local air temperature increases was capable of flooding these basins in stages — forcing Totten's glacial ice to flow out into the Southern Ocean and provide significant contributions to sea level Ocean and provide significant contributions to sea level rise.

By last week, a model study had found that Totten alone could produce nearly a meter of sea level rise before the end of this Century if global warming forces ocean waters to heat up by 2 C or more near the Totten Glacier.

I got a most probable value of 1.55 C / doubling, a 17 % to 83 % range of 1.41 C to 3.27 C / doubling, and a 5 % to 95 % range of 1.18 C to 6.2 C / doubling... not far from your values (but I assumed a little higher total heat accumulation, including deep ocean uptake equal to 10 % of the 0 - 2000M value, and some additonal heat for ice melt and land mass warming).

If all heat in the air supposedly caused by global warming were to enter the surface of the oceans to a depth of 100 meters, the temperature increase would be 0.025 degrees C, and none would be left in the air.

However, the loss of such a massive ice berg from Larsen C, the present human - forced warming of the Antarctic land and ocean environment, and the presently observed thinning of the ice shelf all point toward a rising risk of destabilization or disintegration.