Sentences with phrase «for global heat content»

But I thought we now knew that global surface temperature is a poor proxy for global heat content / aka global warming?

Not exact matches

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

Based on the linear trend, for the 0 to 3,000 m layer for the period 1961 to 2003 there has been an increase of ocean heat content of approximately 14.2 ± 2.4 × 1022 J, corresponding to a global ocean volume mean temperature increase of 0.037 °C during this period.

Time series of global annual ocean heat content (1022 J) for the 0 to 700 m layer.

The authors note that more than 85 % of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

For a long time now climatologists have been tracking the global average air temperature as a measure of planetary climate variability and trends, even though this metric reflects just a tiny fraction of Earth's net energy or heat content.

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change

Re # 35: «Pielke believes ocean heat content changes are the most reliable metric for assessing global heating and cooling.»

The global amplitude (down to 300 m) is between 1E +22 and 3E +22 J, compared to ~ 4E +22 J for the increase in heat content in the period 1955 - 2003 [note: there seems to be a discrepancy in units between the story of Levitus and the data].

I do not think atmospheric temperatures are a consistent and precise proxy for the total heat content of the global system.

Because minimum temperatures in the stable boundary layer are not very robust measures of the heat content in the deep atmosphere and climate models do not predict minimum temperatures well, minimum temperatures should not be used as a surrogate for measures of deep atmosphere global warming.»

The estimate of increase in global ocean heat content for 1971 — 2010 quantified in Box 3.1 corresponds to an increase in mean net heat flux from the atmosphere to the ocean of 0.55 W m — 2.

As for sea temperatures, they are less significant for analyzing «global warming» than estimated total ocean heat content.

Ultimately our paper shows that all three of the main conclusions in DK12 are faulty: the rate of OHC increase has not slowed in recent years, there is no evidence for «climate shifts» in global heat content data, and the recent OHC data do not support the conclusion that the net climate feedback is negative or that climate sensitivity is low.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

The demonstrated ability of GRACE to measure interannual OBP variability on a global scale is unprecedented and has important implications for assessing deep ocean heat content and ocean dynamics.

Ocean warming: «Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records» «Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus» «A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change» «Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006»

Given that it is all eventually going to come back to the issue of the gradual gain we've been seeing in ocean heat content over many decades, the most accurate thing we can say is that 2014's warmth is very consistent with the general accumulation of energy in Earth's climate system caused by increasing GH gases and is well accounted for dynamically in global climate models.

Based on the linear trend, for the 0 to 3,000 m layer for the period 1961 to 2003 there has been an increase of ocean heat content of approximately 14.2 ± 2.4 × 1022 J, corresponding to a global ocean volume mean temperature increase of 0.037 °C during this period.

Time series of annual average global integrals of upper ocean heat content anomaly (1021 J, or ZJ) for (a) 0 — 100 m, (b) 0 — 300 m, (c) 0 — 700 m, and (d) 0 — 1800 m. Thin vertical lines denote when the coverage (Fig. 3) reaches 50 % for (a) 0 — 100 m, (b) 100 — 300 m, (c) 300 — 700 m, and (d) 900 — 1800 m. From Lyman & Johnson (2013)

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

We must maintain and extend the existing global climate observing systems [Riser et al., 2016; von Schuckmann et al., 2016] as well as develop improved coupled (ocean - atmosphere) climate assessment and prediction tools to ensure reliable and continuous monitoring for Earth's energy imbalance, ocean heat content, and sea level rise.

The Linear Trend (with 95 % Confidence Level) for the Three Key Climate Indicators: Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), Ocean Heat Content (OHC), and Sea Level Rise (SLR) a

It's very hard to see how ENSO could be responsible for an increase in global ocean heat content spanning half a century.

The anomaly of the ocean heat content is more important than the atmospheric temperature anomaly for the conclusion whether global warming stopped or whether it hasn't, anyway.

Therefore to account for the increase in heat content, the global geothermal heat flux would need to have increased by a factor of 4 over the last 1/2 century - 1 normal flow and 3 extra flows.

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)?

If this is accepted as a reasonable looking proxy for ocean heat content which matches the instrumental OHC record pretty well, then no «lag» is needed to explain the solar effect on OHC and thus global surface temperature.

What is there is a coherent explanation for the increase in global ocean heat content since the mid-C20th.

Unfortunately, we don't have good ocean heat content data for this period, while the data we do have — global mean atmospheric surface temperature — is dominated by ocean oscillations.

«Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records» «Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus» «A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change» «Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006»

The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65 % of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0 - 700 meters since 2000.

For global warming diagnosis, use ocean heat content changes, recognizing that the deeper ocean heating (i.e. below the long term thermocline) is mostly unavailable to affect weather on multi-decadal time periods).

The change of the heat content of the globe (mainly in the oceans) is dH / dt = S (1 - a)-- E, where S is the solar radiation, a the albedo, E the global infrared emission; such a relation is likely and there are historical series for H (figure 13 - A), E (figure 14 - A) for S and a; whether global averaging makes sense is debatable.

I am sure the global rise in ocean heat content must have something to do with the latest ice loss, but this seems to have been completely omitted for some reason.

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.

Right: global ocean heat - content (HC) decadal trends (1023 Joules per decade) for the upper ocean (surface to 300 meters) and two deeper ocean layers (300 to 750 meters and 750 meters to the ocean floor), with error bars defined as + / - one standard error x1.86 to be consistent with a 5 % significance level from a one - sided Student t - test.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation - based reanalysis of the ocean.

Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003 — 2008 (Schuckmann 2009) analyses ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, constructing a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres (H / T to Chris for bringing it to my attention).

For example, if you could get a futures contract up and running which paid off against say an index of ocean heat content which is probably the best measured and by far the most important global metric available, you would find out in short order what the market really thought about AGW.

For example, additional evidence of a warming trend can be found in the dramatic decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice at its summer minimum (which occurs in September), decrease in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the global average upper ocean (upper 700 m or 2300 feet) heat content (shown relative to the 1955 — 2006 average), and in sea - level rise.

While the increase in global temperature could indeed be stopped within decades by reducing emissions, ocean heat content will continue to increase for at least a thousand years after we have reached zero emissions.

The IPWP is a good point for extrapolating global ocean heat content.

Right: global ocean heat - content (HC) decadal trends (1023 J per decade) for the upper ocean (surface to 300 m) and two deeper ocean layers (300 — 750m and 750 m — bottom), with error bars defined as + / - one standard error x1.86 to be consistent with a 5 % significance level from a one - sided Student t - test.

«The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43 x1022 J yr - 1 for 1955 - 2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0 ± 1.9 x1022 J»

More frequent La Ninas and the negative phase of the PDO are the reason for the increased transfer of Global Warming contribution into the deeper oceans in the last 15 years... This means previously the oceans were not the receptor of as much GW heat content?

Of course 70 % of the globe is covered in water, we should look for global changes by studying changes in total ocean heat content (TOHC).

In the post Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat, we discussed the recent Balmaseda et al (2013) paper «Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content», of which Kevin Trenberth was a coautHeat, we discussed the recent Balmaseda et al (2013) paper «Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content», of which Kevin Trenberth was a coautheat content», of which Kevin Trenberth was a coauthor.

For more information, including a discussion of the natural warming of ocean heat content data, refer to my illustrated essay «The Manmade Global Warming Challenge» [42 MB].

Advocates of the assumption that CO2 variations are a primary cause of changes in deep ocean heat content (i.e., those who author government - sponsored IPCC reports and activists for the anthropogenic global warming cause) have necessarily believed that past natural variations in deep ocean heat content are very slow and gradual.