Sentences with phrase «global ohc»

Ocean reanalyses can potentially provide new insights into global OHC variations, but ocean reanalysis is in its infancy.

lolwot, where's the empirical evidence showing that this is in fact the mechanism that's been responsible for the increase in global OHC since 2001?

I will say that the exact point I gave up on you was when you tried to turn some uncertainty about the ARGO / XBT splice into an invalidation of the universally - accepted fact that global OHC is rising.

You need to ask yourself whether, in the light of these questions, the most likely explanation for global OHC increase is «natural variability» or increasing GHG forcing.

6 / In the light of these questions, is the most likely explanation for global OHC increase «natural variability» or increasing GHG forcing?

Global OHC.

I have illustrated and document that there are multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events that cause the positive trends in SST and TLT anomalies outside of the tropical Pacific, and I have shown that the rise in global OHC, when broken down into logical ocean basin subsets, is dominated by natural variables.

«The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models.

The fact that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble mean accurately represents observed global OHC changes [Cheng et al., 2016] is critical for establishing the reliability of climate models for long - term climate change projections.

-- robust radiative physics — ground - based instrumental evidence that CO2 absorbs and therefore emits IR exactly in accordance with the physical theory — satellite data confirming this — satellite data apparently indicating a radiative imbalance at TOA — robust measurements of the fraction of atmospheric CO2 — increasing global OHC since the mid-C20th

Now, what has caused global OHC to increase since the mid-C20th if not GHG forcing?

If not increasing GHG forcing, what explains this increase in global OHC since the mid-C20th?

Further, studies addressing global OHC below 2000m (reviewed in IPCC AR5 Section 3.2.4) find not a sign of net cooling of the size required by BNO (S).

Not exact matches

Despite the difficulties of calibration that makes an absolute radiative imbalance measurement impossible — the anomalies data contains essential information on climate variability that can be used to understand and close out the global energy budget — changes in which are largely OHC.

So far, the data suggest it is a more responsive measure, but of course OHC alone is inadequate — not least because of coverage issues that are even worse than the GMT [global mean temperature] data sets.

Global surface temperature rise may have been a bit sluggish since 2007 but OHC which comprises the vast bulk of AGW (no 50:50 debate possible here), OHC continues apace.

Even putting aside the OHC data and fingerprinting, there is absolutely no evidence in model simulations (or in prevailing reconstructions of the Holocene), that an unforced climate would exhibit half - century timescale global temperature swings of order ~ 1 C. I don't see a good theoretical reason why this should be the case, but since Judith lives on «planet observations» it should be a pause for thought.

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.

The interviewer did say he would get back to it and that «get - back» resulted in Lawson insisting that OHC rise and global ice loss was «pure speculation.»

It would be nice to see a global map of data density next to the OHC global data map.

I'd like to see a global map of SST next to their global map of OHC; that might reveal patterns of interest.

This makes perfect sense since there is little to no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming effect on global Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data.

And since your climate cult claims that 90 % of global warming is found in the increase in OHC, that's an admission that 90 % of global warming is natural.

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.

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.

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

Go ahead and show us on any of the following: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Antarctic Sea Ice Extent OHC Sea level Rise Rate Global Temperature Drought Incidence Hurricane Activity Tornado Activity Glacial Melting Like my mother use to tell me «Do something useful»

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

The OHC and GMT and MSL increases are empirical evidence of global warming.

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)?

By contrast, the OHC and sea level increased steadily during this period, providing clear and convincing evidence that global warming continued.

A comparison of the changes and fluctuations in the three observational climate indicators (SLR, OHC, and GMST; Figure 2) clearly shows that both OHC and SLR are much better indicators of global warming than GMST.

Thus, we suggest that scientists and modelers who seek global warming signals should track how much heat the ocean is storing at any given time, termed global ocean heat content (OHC), as well as sea level rise (SLR).

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.

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.

If the steric SLR or OHC increase were too big, it would be inconsistent with the measured global warming.

It is the north Atlantic which has gained lots of OHC and has had the most elevated SST which best matches the global trend since 1970.

Based on CERES - EBAF data calibrated to Argo OHC up to July the 2008 - 2017 average TOA imbalance is going to be about 0.9 W / m2, Berkeley Earth Land + Ocean global average about 1.01 K difference from 1860 - 1879, forcing updated using NOAA AGGI to about 2.3 W / m2.

OHC changes are constrained by the global energy budget as you would expect if not engaged in pointless and misleading thought experiments.

«Global» OHC and SLR is nor consistent globally.

There is no magic to be found be picking a choosing «global» when convenient or regional when convenient or OHC when convenient or surface temperature when convenient.

«bserved increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades.

Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.»

Climate alarmists claim the rises in OHC, SST and TLT anomaly data are overwhelming proof of anthropogenic global warming.

If and when you can provide data or references to document your claims, or if you were to point me to those data or references — data and references that would help illustrate and document my posts, (which are about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events on global SST and TLT anomalies, and about the discharge / recharge aspects of ENSO, and about the impacts of ENSO, NAO, NPI, AMO on OHC, not the PDO, not what initiates ENSO events, not millennial ocean cycles, etc.)-- I would be happy to include it.

Oddly, the latent and sensible heat flux that has warmed the troposphere so nicely in 2014 has not been focused on the area of the Pacific where El Ninos occur, but has been in other regions of the planet, with record OHC on a global basis.

Regarding your PS: You wrote, «I share however Stephen Wilde's reservation on the accuracy of the heat budget data — how well do we know Pacific, let alone global, OHC?»

Positive forcing at seasonal to inter-annual scales leads to an average global surface temperature drop from La Nina influence but recharging of OHC (longer term gain), while reduced forcing allows El Nino conditions and temporary peaks in global average temperature, and OHC reduction (longer term loss).

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.