Sentences with phrase «between ohc»

While some of the previously «missing energy» is accounted for, substantial discrepancies between OHC and CERES at interannual time scales persist, and are especially prominent during 2008 - 9.

What this means is that OHC before 2003 is essentially unreliable; Knox and Douglass confirmed this by showing a correlation between OHC, Fohc, and OLR, Ftoa; before 2003, the correlation between Fohc and Ftoa was poor, after 2003 it is good.

The associated graphic illustrates the huge disparity between OHC and everything else at a glance.

Reading this contrarian blather, I think it's fair to say that the contrarians inabilities in understanding «CAGW» are also persent in their understanding of the relationship between OHC & surface temperatures.

«You're ignoring my comment above in which I clearly stated the 0.5 W / m2 was the difference between OHC and the TOA model output.»

Yet it can also be seen that if BNO (P) exists there will be a disconnect between OHC and surface temperature.

Not exact matches

It is also interesting to note the relationship between Australias warmth and the record OHC in the Indo Pacific Warm Pool.

First, you were comparing the difference between model TOA energy imbalance and observed 0 - 2000 meter OHC.

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

Approximate conversions between changes in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature, for the world's oceans:

You only need to know the OHC at two times to know the mean imbalance between them.

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.

However, a further complication is the big jump in the OHC content reconstruction just prior to the splice between the XBT and ARGO datasets.

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.

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.

Ideally the zero point would be modulated by ocean heat content and / or ssts, since it is the comparison between energy into the oceans vs. energy radiated back out that determines warming or cooling, but we don't have much historical ohc or sst data so a fixed zero point would seem to be the best that can be done.

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 «OHC changes» are the result of differences between the downwards flow of heat due to turbulence, and upwards flow due to the general rise of deeper water (and polar subduction).

But you suggested that the 1995/96 rise in Tropical Pacific OHC may have come from below the 700 meter level, when you wrote, «After all a slightly less cold upwelling entering the ENSO process from below would manifest itself in warming at the surface (and vice versa) and that would help to account for the apparent disjunction between the strengths of the La Nina and El Nino phases in your article.»

What remains indeed unaccounted for is the volcanic OHC imprint (which seems responsible for the trend difference between GCMs and FR11 highlighted in [Troy Masters] analysis).

These salinity shifts correspond well in timing to the OHC shifts, which are also coincident with surface transitions from global - warming slowdown to rapid warming and then to the current slowdown, with intervals between shifts lasting about three decades.

The observed 0 - 2000m OHC between 1960 - 2010 provides another 0.25 W / m2 which makes it 0.35 W / m2 for this period.

She could go crazy and postulate a relationship between TSI, OHC, jet stream position, and a dozen other factors and test it without researching all those other factors first.

[10] The 0.86 divisor comes from the coefficient on the integral of TOA imbalance anomaly ΔN when regressing the ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly against both that integral and time, thus isolating any fixed offset between ΔQ and ΔN that may exist.

Do you believe the difference in OHC reflected between the x-y origin of the graph and the end of the data presented is an error?