Sentences with phrase «ohc over»

That would imply a radiative imbalance of at least -10 W / m2 or an albedo of 0.27 compared to the usual 0.30 Given that OHC over 60 years is up, indicating a positive imbalance, how do you reconcile this?

The TOA energy imbalance as measured by the 0 - 2000 meter change in OHC over the same period is 0.57 + / -0.4 W / m ^ 2 (90 % confidence interval).

Loeb 2012 shows that ENSO is responsible for the interannual variability, but not the increase in OHC over the last few decades.

I will confess that I was initially baffled by this post, for it was my prejudice that the general increase in OHC over the last ~ 50 years leaves so little room for benign warming due to some internal variability, that is I failed initially to see what case had to be answered and hence I failed to comprehend your argument.

See figure 4, although anyone who can get a global 69 % increase in OHC over the period with the SH increasing by 62 % and the NH by 68 % needs watching.

You're pretty smooth Anu; the Levitus 2009 paper sees «plenty of ocean warming»; I suggest you look at Fig S9 of that paper; and I note you haven't commented on the 2003 spike in OHC which must be a transition error and contributes 1/2 of all OHC over the whole data period.

Based on the slope of the OHC over the last several years, a value of 0.75 w / m ^ 2 is possible which would place it right between the two of them.

Not exact matches

Ocean survey flight path and instrument deployment points over shaded ocean heat content (OHC) that was calculated from survey data.

OHC which means Over Head Cam (the camshaft is typically located within the cylinder head and is higher than the valves.

It's not necessarily the case that relative trajectories of OHC and surface temperature have to be congruent over these long timescales.

This plot shows thermosteric sea level change over that period, which would strongly correlate with OHC / ocean temperature, and this plot shows surface temperature evolution.

I agree the OHC data are incompatible with a predominately internal contribution (although I'm sure Judith would argue those data are too uncertain, though I don't think anyone has argued OHC decreasing over the last half - century, at least not at the ocean basins / depths that communicate with the atmosphere on the relevant timescales).

The most exciting thing is we'll get a chance to see the relative strength of all of these over the next few years, and it will most interesting to compare the total decade of 2010 - 2019 to previous decades in terms of the trends in Arctic Sea ice, Global Temps, and of course, OHC.

This was explicitly discussed in Hansen et al, 1997 where they predicted that over the last few decades of the 20th Century, there should have been a significant increase in ocean heat content (OHC).

This permits us to apportion surface temperature change over long intervals on the basis of OHC change.

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).

This graphic suggests the following changes in OHC 0 - 2000m over the various time periods of the proposed BNO (S) cycle, with the final 5 years - to - 2014 values taken from Levitus 0 - 2000m.

OHC may be one of the best measures of the top of atmosphere imbalance available - averaged over long time periods, global, representing (for the full depth of the oceans) ~ 93 % of the energy changes.

If you think about the fact that OHC trend is responsible for over 90 % of warming due to TOA imbalance, you may reasonably expect the surface T changes (where only 3 % of that imbalance energy goes) will not be very well correlated.

I guess from the diference between ocean heat content over freezing point as opposed to the OHC change since 1970?

The OHC increase over the past decade is also statistically significant (Nuccitelli et al. in preparation).

@WHT: Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.

Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.

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

This may be me advertising my ignorance but if the OHC is of interest as against the SST why do we use a parameter of «global temperature» which is an amalgam of SST and air temperature over land rather than a total heat content or a temperature normalised say for mass or thermal density (normalise to the properties of water say)?

Over the long haul if OHC stops rising the lower ocean will be sucking excess heat out of upper ocean as equilibrium between them is slowly reestablished.

If we could measure how much additional DLR there has been over say 30 years and then work out from OHC how much energy has been added to the oceans over that time then we could compare the energy of the two and see if they add up.

As Bob Tisdale has found, the OHC and SST of a large area of the Pacific has been stable over the last thirty years.

I have done a number of OHC calculations over the years and the numbers you quote are ridiculously large.

Lucifer, if you look at my references you'll see that ocean heat transport has been going down over the last decade3 and the OHC of the N Atlantic has been decreasing since 2007.

As he pointed out, a dominant unforced contribution to surface warming relative to forced trends would be expected to be accompanied by a trend of declining OHC, which is inconsistent with the observed trends averaged over the past half century as evidenced by mixed layer temperature measurements and sea level rise.

The amount depends on the depth over which the heat accumulates too, and OHC measurements have certain depth ranges associated with them.

Now that the sun has gone quiet (declining solar input) and a grand minimum is predicted, we can expect to see OHC decline over the next few decades starting in the upper layer.

Given UKMO EN3 OHC differs in sign from NODC over the ARGO era, that process may already have begun.

This is one reason why many observers have suggested that multidecadal changes in ocean heat content may prove to be a more reliable metric than TOA energy imbalances, although the OHC measurements are themselves subject to methodological problems that preclude reliable interpretation over short timescales.

Right now, with the increasing forcing from GH gases, over multi-decadal periods, while the ENSO cycle still exists, it is a «charge / discharge» cycle running on top of a longer - term rising OHC.

Linear trends are particularly sensitive to the periods being analyzed [Lyman, 2012], and over such a short 8 year interval, changes in upper OHC can be strongly influenced by fluctuations in the state of the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[Roemmich and Gilson, 2011] and other short - term variations in the ocean state.

From the paper: Over the whole globe, the dominant spatial mode of variability in OHC in the upper 300 m [as shown by the first empirical orthogonal function (EOF), which explains the most variance], occurs mainly in the tropical Pacific and has the structure of ENSO variability (Fig. 4, A and B).

What he does not do, and should have done is plotted the change in the effect over time against some emperical measure of either temperature or surface heat content (either OHC directly for when we have the data, or glacial extents, or sea levels).

So, 100 % of the OHC variation in the ARGO period (for the full 0m - 2000m layer) still is a reflection of the average TOA imbalance over that period (modulo the latent heat of fusion lost to melting part of the cryosphere and OHC variations below 2000m).

However, as the mechanisms by which CO2 affects OHC are so completely different in each case, I find it surprising that this issue can even be questioned at this stage (When so much effort and money has been expended on climate science over the last twenty or so years) and in re-reading Rob's article on the layer he references only one paper on the subject.