Not exact matches
If we had launched the Triana / DSCOVR climate satellite ten years ago, instead of mothballing it, we'd probably have robust answers to the energy budget question, and we could get the ocean
heat change by
calculating the (total energy change)- (
atmospheric warming).
If you were to
calculate a change in
atmospheric heat content, that would be closer to your suggestion, and while I don't think it would look much different, it is not the same metric.
With respect to your statement that «No one
calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the
atmospheric heat content».
Now that I have answered your challenge to the question in your original post, you have changed the question to «'' No one
calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the
atmospheric heat content».
The quote from the NRC report is, frankly, a little odd, since it is bizarre that anyone would attempt to
calculate the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the
atmospheric heat content and climate sensitivity (which are not).
The surface temperature response, T, to a given change in
atmospheric CO2 is
calculated from an energy balance equation for the surface, with
heat removed either by a radiative damping term or by diffusion into the deep ocean.
We analyze spatial patterns of precipitation globally associated with forest loss by
calculating shifts in the global tropical precipitation band, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), associated with changes in cross-equatorial
atmospheric heat transport using equation 2.21 from [33].
The
atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that
calculates how much the surface and
atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30 - minute times step given the radiative
heating and cooling rates.
I know many clever scientists have produced figures
calculating the
heat budget of the
atmospheric greenhouse effect but the value to be fixed to the convective process as a negative forcing has not been adequately quantified as far as I know.
The researchers
calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of
heat stress at wet - bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and
atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that is currently available online and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences....
If you have good measurements of upper ocean and
atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to
calculate the rate of
heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten years.