Sentences with phrase «heat content then»

I think this is a critical issue for the entire AGW construct because if the extra DLR from more GHGs can not add to ocean heat content then only the effects on the air need be considered and that would be insignificant in the face of oceanic control of surface air temperatures.

Not exact matches

Use language appropriate to the visitor based on the target audience Heat maps show an F pattern is used when scanning content, so using bold headings and sub-headings to make it easier to scan and break up a copy Change paragraphs to bulleted lists Put the main point first (inverted pyramid) Use personal pronouns Put yourself in the place of the visitor and consider questions the visitor may have, then get to the point with the answer Add links, if appropriate, to keep the visitor engaged on your site and to keep them from searching elsewhere Name links (and anchor text) in a way that the visitor will know what to expect when they click Find out what keywords visitors are searching for to reach your site and write with these keywords in mind These tips are a great starting point for anyone wanting to optimize their website content.

The sap collected is then transferred into bigger pots and placed over moderate heat to evaporate the moisture content of the sap.

The coconut oil is squeezed out of the dried coconut, then filtered and heat - or vacuum - processed in order to purify the product and reduce the moisture content.

If trials are conducted in the heat, or with reduced oxygen content, for example, then continuous knowledge of the distance remaining may become more important as an anchor point in the regulation of work rate.

Then they used the climate models to simulate by how much ocean heat content has risen since the 1970s.

Since then, anthropogenic influence has also been identified in a range of other climate variables, such as ocean heat content, atmospheric pressure and sea ice extent, thereby contributing further evidence of an anthropogenic influence on climate, and improving confidence in climate models.

A full makeover is due next year, but until then Toyota keeps adding standard content like heated mirrors, Bluetooth and steering wheel audio controls.

So I thought I was understanding the whole thing pretty well and then along comes this Rosenthal paper on Pacific Ocean heat content over the past 10,000 years.

Away from the dense network of heat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat absorbing (daytime) then heat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieheat radiating (nighttime) structures which is the Urban Heat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experieHeat Island and above the air with high water vapor content trapped by the valley along the river, not to mention the pall of coal dust over the city, morning low temps were much more like what the natural countryside would experience.

This does not mean that the current ice melt pattern is an example of anything less then excessive heat content in the region.

This increased homogeneity, then, may alter the «how quickly the land and ocean temperatures respond and make a different to the projection of the forcing onto the ocean, and hence the ocean heat content change» and return the real world, combination - of - forcing, efficacy closer to that of CO2?

(I pointed out in 231 that if all that heat that makes up the increase in ocean heat content since 2000 was in the atmosphere back in 1979, then it would have heated up the atmosphere on the order of 15 degrees C.)

For hurricanes, then, you'd want to ask what the sea surface temperature, subsurface ocean heat content, and atmospheric water vapor content would have been if, say, fossil fuel use had been eliminated 100 years ago, and atmospheric CO2 remained at about 300 ppm.

If you can't keep up with annual - decadal changes in the TOA radiative imbalance or ocean heat content (because of failure to correctly model changes in the atmosphere and ocean due to natural variability), then your climate model lacks fidelity to the real world system it is tasked to represent.

C isothermic level in the pacific appeared to rise from an average of 400 meters to about 100 meters recently; I find myself wondering then how is it that the oceans heat content is dropping, the solar input appears to be consistant, that one of the GEWEX comitties appears to indicate that the atmospheric water vapor seems to be decreasing.

If the Earth's surface is indeed warming, then the heat content of the surface increases day by day.

Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..

She then argues that this can't be attributed to human - caused global warming, which presumably implies something about the current rise in ocean heat content.

I do acknowledge that it is true that if we can measure all manifestations of increased heat content, and it amounts to as small a figure as that you site, then the question of illogic becomes effectively a question of semantics.

Notice that from 2003 to 2010, the observations are higher than prediction, then lower than prediction — but overall OHC (actually OHCA, ocean heat content anomaly) has been pretty close to its predicted values.

Since the IPCC's graph above up to 2003 shows that most of the energy from global warming is in the oceans, to a first approximation, Ocean Heat Content change since then is going to be close enough to the Total Heat Content change.

Go to oceans, then ocean heat content 700m, then find the chart on the N Atlantic.

The data are especially poor prior to 1970, when the satellite era began and also the ocean heat content data are poor then and prior to then.

At Thomas: I find that note of total air heat content interesting, because if that was so then Wichita beats the stuffing out of the desert southwest in the heat content of the air for a good chunk of the year.

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.

The temperature measured has to be combined with other measurements so that the specific heat of the water can be computed with then allows the specific heat content to be estimated.

If Arctic Sea ice recovers, ocean heat content declines, and near surface temperatures decline over a 10 year period... why then we might actually have something really worth getting excited about.

If you think they do, then you should explain why they are a better proxy than ocean heat content, and over what timeframe you think they are a better proxy.

Then this: «The hiatus is not an issue because the ocean heat content was increasing consistently with the forcing change.

Assuming for the sake of argument that «the pause» is not an instrument error and the troposphere hasn't gotten any warmer in 16 years then this raises the question of how ocean heat content could be rising which, according to ARGO, at least the upper half of the ocean is accumulating thermal energy.

Then about three years ago, those same scientists, using those same data sets, admitted there was a pause, and spent their energy explaining why it didn't matter (ocean heat content being a better proxy was the most popular).

The way I see it, if you get various data points of ocean heat content, you then have to plot a trend to see how that is changing with the other changes in incoming and outgoing radiation and greenhouse gases andland use etc..

Then close the roof and subject it to constant LWR over an equal time period and measure the heat content.

If there has been enough heat coming out of ocean (as it does in an El Nino event) to cause that multidecadal warming, then in light of 1st Law, what must have happened to ocean heat content?

As indicated above, TMin is a poor proxy for atmospheric heat content, and it inflicts this problem on the popular TMean temperature record which is then a poor proxy for greenhouse warming too.

Regarding TimTheToolMan's prediction as to how the IPCC and the climate science community will deal with the issue, the more one thinks about the IPCC's dilemma, the more one should believe that this is just what they will do, they will tune AR5's modeling in ways which get a better recent fit, sacrificing some historical fit to do so, and then they will produce a series of new papers which rewrite the history of ocean heat content to match.

If any excess at the tropics is matched by an increased deficit of DLR over L elsewhere then there is no net accretion to ocean heat content.

If it can be shown that a change in DSR puts more energy into the bulk ocean than a similar change in DLR then this implys that DLR is returned more quickly to space and therefore the earth's heat content sensitivity would be less for DLR than DSR.

If it turns out that the reduction in cloud cover ALSO leads to increasing tropospheric temperatures (and ocean heat content) then this would be a positive feedback to the external GHG forcing, and Hansen's warnings should be given your full attention.

But I imagine we didn't have accurate ocean heat content measurements then.

Then when I mention that the ocean heat content has risen, you seem to doubt that, or maybe agree to it but still don't understand where the energy came from.

Apparently, these GCMs can «forecast» climate change only «a posteriori», that is, for example, if we want to know what may happen with these GCMs from 2012 to 2020 we need first to wait the 2020 and then adjust the GCM model with ad - hoc physical explanations including even an appeal to an unpredictable «red - noise» fluctuation of the ocean heat content and flux system (occurring in the model in 2055 and 2075!)

Same as with my paragraph # 1 above, if we state that oceans are 90 % of the heat content, then we are stating that we know all the masses & heat capacities globally (from outer atmos down to lower sea - bed).

Add in that the conditions seem to be indicated by the trailing condition of a La Nina event, seems to suggest that the contributor has more to do with Arctic heat flow patterns then the equatorial heat content.

This is a blow - up of the changes in the heat content of the top 300 meters and then from 300 to 700 meters.

If there is a source of shallow level warming occurring concurrently, and rather more uniformly (such as can be expected to result from an enhanced external forcing) then the total shallow layer total heat content could easily remain the same while the deeper layer total heat content increases steadily.

In pre-steady state there will initially be a rise in temperature, and heat content, in layer (1), then heat will begin to probe the lower levels; the profile, for a constant rise in surface temp, will have an exponential.

«then the latent heat abosrbed from the ocean to melt it is is approximately 0.5 8 10 ^ 22 Joules so the heat content of the ocean would need to be adjusted upward to refect»

Once you've established what the data really is then you can go on to deal with the actual heat content changes are.