Sentences with phrase «if ocean data»

Not exact matches

«The new data set will allow us to check if our ocean models can correctly represent changes in the flow of warm water under ice shelves,» he added.

If everything goes according to plan, data from the US probe will help researchers track large natural sources and sinks of CO2, such as oceans and forests, and perhaps some manmade sources, such as sprawling urban areas or even large power plants.

So far the team has looked only at data from the Pacific Ocean region, but if other tropical oceans have the same effect, Earth may be well equipped to handle global warming.

If this ocean - floor data had been made available five weeks ago to those outside BP, he adds, «imagine how the world might have been able to respond».

In this study, researchers of the Royal Observatory of Belgium show gravity data from recent Cassini flybys can be explained if Dione's crust floats on an ocean located 100 kilometers below the surface.

From his own research in chemical oceanography, along with data from a number of recent studies, Weber points out that some negative consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and warming «are manifesting faster than previously predicted,» including ocean acidification and oxygen loss, which are expected to affect «a large fraction of marine species if current trends continue unchecked.»

A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to «fast feedback processes» is 3 °C, but when accounting for longer - term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6 °C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.

Rather, their analysis shows that if you compare the LGM land cooling with the model land cooling, then the model that fits the land best has much higher GLOBAL climate sensitivity than you get for best fit if you use ocean data.

Nick Moran of The Millions had interesting prospective, mentioning «The emissions and e-waste for e-Readers could be stretched even further if I went down the resource rabbit hole to factor in: electricity needed at the Amazon and Apple data centers; communication infrastructure needed to transmit digital files across vast distances; the incessant need to recharge or replace the batteries of eReaders; the resources needed to recycle a digital device (compared to how easy it is to pulp or recycle a book); the packaging and physical mailing of digital devices; the need to replace a device when it breaks (instead of replacing a book when it's lost); the fact that every reader of eBooks requires his or her own eReading device (whereas print books can be loaned out as needed from a library); the fact that most digital devices are manufactured abroad and therefore transported across oceans.

Even if ultimately there is real confidence in ocean heat content data — i.e. the trends exceed the differences in data handling — without understanding changes in reflected SW and emitted IR it remains impossible to understand the global energy dynamic.

Note that this sampling noise in the tide gauge data most likely comes from the water sloshing around in the ocean under the influence of winds etc., which looks like sea - level change if you only have a very limited number of measurement points, although this process can not actually change the true global - mean sea level.

I suppose that if all uncertainties are resolved in the direction of lower risk, we just might get away with BAU for the next few decades without a complete disaster (though continued sea level rise, ocean acidification and 2 degrees Celsius actually sound pretty risky to me, and the risk that there are other factors in play seems to be reinforced by paleo data on glacial - interglacial transitions).

can point me to the data that show that global ocean temperatures are decreasing (if they are?)

Applying the same logic, any of the 20th Century History runs which exhibited similar abrupt shifts (Southern Ocean sea - ice, Tibetan plateau snow melt and N Atlantic convection) which were not observed in the real - world, should have also been excluded from the ensemble mean for Marvel et al to have any hope of credibly extending inferences to real - world observational data — even if we suspend disbelief with respect to other problems associated with data, methods and relevance.

If the correlations were positive, that temperatures matched Scenario B, would you accept skeptics saying, «Sure, but really, Scenario C is more useful», and if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»If the correlations were positive, that temperatures matched Scenario B, would you accept skeptics saying, «Sure, but really, Scenario C is more useful», and if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»if the ocean - heat data looked like Lyman (2010), them saying «Sure, but that's only because deeper heat is being transfered to the surface and replaced by cooler waters, but we can't see it»?

I am sure if the Argo system had brought back data that showed warming of the oceans it would have been your lead story.

But for journalists and others who are not climate scientists, some narrative would help, as inline text and more clarification as footnotes if needed including, cover for example: — being very clear for a graph what was being forecast (people play silly games with Hansen, confusing which was BAU)-- Perhaps showing original graph first «This is what was predicted...» in [clearly a] sidebar THEN annotated / overlayed graph with «And this is how they did...» sidebar — placing the prediction in context of the evolving data and science (e.g. we'd reached 3xx ppm and trajectory was; or «used improved ocean model»; or whatever)-- perhaps a nod to the successive IPCC reports and links to their narrative, so the historical evolution is clear, and also perhaps, how the confidence level has evolved.

[Response: I would point out that if you look at the combined ocean and land data for the tropics (available at the GISS web site), the ocean (still part of the surface after all) shows significant and widespread warming.

If we had better sea level rise data for the whole period, we might see that the heat storage curve into the ocean had a shape that better matched the simple function approximation than the land surface data does, or we might have better information on internal climate modes that confused or delayed the temperature response.

Open ocean proxies don't have the resolution, and so a complete record will never happen — the hope is that if landfalling data can be significantly extended it might give reasonable long term statistics — but right now my understanding is that this is all very preliminary.

And, as increase in ocean temperature lags increase in atmospheric temp., even if no AGW signal is yet visible in the hurricane data, this may not mean very much in terms of the future impact of AGW on hurricane intensity.

For BNO (S) alone in its last quarter cycle 2000 - 14 (for which we have the best data OHC) the ΔOHC 0 - 2000m record is 4x larger and of opposite sign (contradicting the assumption of BNO = AGW by suggesting AGW is 5x bigger in magnitude than BNO (S) for this period if BNO (S) did exist using 0 - 2000m ocean storage).

Indeed, within the 164 years of data it is questionable if any cycle can be convincingly demonstrated between the NH Ocean & Land temperatures.

If scientists need to rely on bucket samples of water to prove the historic global temperature of our oceans, perhaps it is time to recognise that there are some aspects of our climate data that are not worth relying on.

If you can point me to a source of complete annual data for surface, upper air and deep ocean temperatures from the HadCM2 and / or GFDL (R30b?)

If you add to this the evidence Roger A. Pielke, Sr. offers in his rebuttal of RC propaganda, I think one can safely and sanely declare that the AGW proponents are working with a house of cards: it looks like a great integrated, well designed structure, a consensus — especially to the so - called environmentalists and to their media and political allies — but so many of its foundational data sets (ocean temps, net ice melt, etc) don't support their model; at the very least, they don't support the hysterical, «save the planet» nuttiness that is rampant today.

The available data are insufficient to say if the changes in O2 are caused by natural variability or are trends that are likely to persist in the future, but they do indicate that large - scale changes in ocean physics influence natural biogeochemical cycles, and thus the cycles of O2 and CO2 are likely to undergo changes if ocean circulation changes persist in the future.

Thus if one plots all the minima of the different historical measurements, that gives a better impression of the real «background» CO2 level than the averages: see The same for ocean data and coastal data: all are around the ice core level.

Now, if we can just stop climate scientists from fiddling with the raw data, adjusting what they believe should be the correct ocean behavior, we may actually be able to discern a trend, construct a hypothesis and make predictions.

If you use data from GISS, HADLEY or Berkeley, it seems that SST is growing in the Southern Ocean.

If you've been following these posts, you'll remember I'm also tracking the Ocean Nino Index (ONI) relative to the satellite data.

If the paleo data for estimating the past ocean temperature is off by 0.2 C the then the estimate of delta S would be off by 0.8Wm - 2.

The only alternative way around this, if you really want seasons, is to first run a fully coupled or a slab ocean simulation and create the SST input data from that.

SLR satellite data includes things such as the «GIA Adjustment» — which is the amount of SLR that there would have been if the ocean basin hadn't increased in volume and in the case of this new study, how much higher the sea surface would have been if it had not been suppressed by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, another correction for ENSO / PDO «computed via a joint cyclostationary empirical orthogonal function (CSEOF) analysis of altimeter GMSL, GRACE land water storage, and Argo - based thermosteric sea level from 2005 to present», as well as other additions and adjustments — NONE OF WHICH can actually be found manifested in any change to the physical Sea Surface Height.»

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.

Also, wouldn't there need to be data showing much more ocean cooling if the AMO PDO were a significant factor in recent warming?

What we know with some certainty about oceans (if data is to be believed) is that the intra-annual change in the insolation effects (suspiciously) high symmetricity in the N. Atlantic's sea surface temperature, cantered on 1st of March and 31st of August.

Another question (actual question, not rhetorical) is: If you had two ARGO floats connected by a rigid 10 meter pole so that they would have to travel together, up, down, and sideways, and the pair traveled the ocean doing the normal ARGO mission, would the data from the two buoys track within + / - 0.005 C?

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we'd still have to explain the land blip...» — Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008

If you look at the table of ocean heating rates at various depths as a function of time given in the posting directly below this post, it seems that from 0 - 700 m the rate of heating since 2004 has slowed compared to 1983 - 2004, and we don't have any good data below 700m until the Argo data started flowing in (2005 - 2008?).

If the corrected 2005 Levitus dataset ocean heat flux data and the GISS change in radiative forcings estimates were used, (Q — F) in the Gregory 02 equation (3) would be centred on 0.68 Wm - 2 instead of on 0.20 Wm - 2.

The 1942 «peak» is nowhere seen in any other direct measurement (high resolution ice cores from Law Dome) neither in stomata data for the past century, neither in coralline sponges, the latter based on 13C / 12C ratio's which certainly should change if there was an important change in inputs or outputs from vegetation or oceans.

If the oceans» heat is «increasing enormously» and «relentlessly», then show us the raw data.

If you choose some subset of the data (southeast of Japan, Pacific Ocean, upper 100 meters) you could probably «prove» the ocean is cooOcean, upper 100 meters) you could probably «prove» the ocean is cooocean is cooling.

If the only station on an island in the ocean is at an airport or has «problems», that islands data will then supposedly be used for the temperature of the ocean up to 1200 km away in all directions, extending any problems over a large area.

The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.

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.

Why on earth did we pay so much money for the ARGO floats, the only instrumentation actually designed for the task of measuring global ocean temperature accurately to hundredths of a degree, if we don't use the data?

I'd love it if he could prove the ocean warming wasn't happening, however the general vibe from his posts is one of poor science, conspiracy «mysterious missing data» and the usual cherry picking.

That's just not true if you include ocean heat content data to 2000 meters.