Sentences with phrase «ohc estimates»

The reanalysis estimate is observational too, in that it is informed by the same observational data as the other OHC estimates featured.

(1) I would also like to know better the reliability and accuracy of the OHC estimates.

I believe Trenberth's OHC estimate, which came later, was headlined to be larger.

Not exact matches

This is of particular interest in relation to «effective climate sensitivity» estimates that rely heavily on OHC uptake data.

The estimates of OHC change since 1975 are even more certain, and it is the interval since then when the warming occurred.

Regarding ECS («equilibrium climate sensitivity»), I think there are difficulties estimating anything truly resembling a Charney - type ECS from data involving OHC uptake and forcing estimates, because these estimates are fraught with so many uncertainties, and because the values that are calculated, even if accurate, bear an uncertain relationship to how the climate would behave at equilibrium.

The mean temperature change or the OHC increase is an integral over all of that and therefore can be estimated to higher precision than any individual reading (just like for the weather station record).

However because we don't measure ocean heat content below 2000m (about half of the total volume), the OHC you cite applies to the top half volume only, so the average dT in this part of volume is just under 0.1 K (0.08) consistent with the estimates.

we find that estimates of the recent (2003 — 2008) OHC [ocean heat content] rates of change are preponderantly negative.

HadCRUT4 may well be better correlated with OHC than an index calculated by adding to the calculation of the index the estimated warming of polar regions.

From the NOAA curves we see that the estimated rate of increase in OHC (0 - 2000m) has been rather steadily about 0.75 × 10 ^ 22 J / year or 0.47 W / m ^ 2.

The yellow is the 3.7 for CO2 plus 0.8 Watts for OHC recovery which would be the approximate error if the sea surface temperature where under estimated by 0.2 C.

DK12 compounded their erroneous analysis by attempting to calculate the net climate feedback based solely on their estimated 2002 - 2008 OHC increase for the uppermost 700 meters, and only considering the CO2 and solar radiative forcings, ignoring the significant aerosol forcing, for example.

«A global ocean heat content change (OHC) trend of 0.55 ± 0.1 Wm ^ 2 is estimated over the time period 2005 — 2010.

Studies show that taking the full ocean depth, ice melt, and other factors into account, Earth is estimated to have gained 0.40 ± 0.09 W m − 2 since 1960 and 0.72 W m − 2 since 1992 [Cheng et al., 2017]-- 18 % higher than for the top 2,000 - meter OHC alone.

Using the late 20th century solar activity / earth temp time series, we can estimate a relationship between solar activity and temperature change; using that and past records, we can infer / impute a time series of ohc values.

The OHC has increased by 7,5 W m2 pr decade between 1992 and 2015, according to Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham, and Jiang Zhu (2017): Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015.

The paper usefully discusses the range of estimates of increase in OHC (Ocean Heat Content).

These net changes in OHC associated with ENSO are an order of magnitude larger than the multidecadal changes estimated for 1970 — 2012.

Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) also note that ocean heat content (OHC) variability can strongly impact the «instrumental» climate sensitivity estimates (emphasis added).

«Climate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for instance.

OHC: • Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical record.

A) a better temperature record (C&W or berkeley) both of which will increase the numerator (that thing on the top) B) a better OHC record (see the recent paper on sea level which will effect their estimates of OHC (the denominator thing) C) revised forcing due to aerosols from small volcanos.

Ocean Heat Content estimates produced by the ex-NODC at NCEI show that OHC anomalies in each quarter of 2015 were the highest on record for each quarter.

OK what is the numeric estimate of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of C2 in terms of OHC?

The sea level rise data combined with the Argo data combined with the glacial mass loss estimates provide a pretty strong triangulation of continued gain of energy in the climate system with the majority going to OHC gain since 2003.

They then found that you actually got very compatible answers if done with reasonable estimates of historical forcing and a sensible treatment of OHC.

The basic picture is unchanged — model simulations were able to capture the historical variance in OHC (as best we know it now — there remains significant structural uncertainty in those estimates).

The energy entering the climate system is estimated for the various components: warming of the atmosphere and land, OHC increase, melting of glaciers and ice caps (land ice), melting of the major ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica), and changes in the sun.