Sentences with phrase «heat content trend»

While reading this piece, I discovered an interesting point from the «Corrected» global ocean heat content trend, the 11th picture in the page:

Figure 3.2: b) Observation - based estimates of annual five - year running mean global mean mid-depth (700 — 2000 m) ocean heat content in ZJ (Levitus et al., 2012) and the deep (2000 — 6000 m) global ocean heat content trend from 1992 — 2005 (Purkey and Johnson, 2010), both with one standard error uncertainties shaded (see legend).

Johnson et al. (2007) estimated that the deep ocean could add an additional 2 - 10 % to the upper ocean heat content trend, which is likely to grow in importance as the anthropogenic warming signal propagates to increasing depth with time.

However, our Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate that the long - term global heat content trend has risen at a steady, increasing rate over the past 4 decades.

S06) of heat content trends below 700 m during the years 2000 to 2009.

For instance, Figure 15 compares the various different estimates of ocean heat content trends.

Gavin, I think it would be worth adding to the post 1) the main reason why there was so much doubt about the Lyman et al results (the unphysical melt amounts for 2003 - 5), 2) the expected role of GRACE in obtaining a reliable result, 3) the fact that the ARGOs don't measure the deep oceans, and 4) that it's inappropriate to take the remaining ARGO data (shown in the Lyman et al correction to be essentially flat for the last two years) and draw any conclusions about ocean heat content trends for that period.

Not exact matches

This is due to the unabated upward trends in human population growth (6), atmospheric heat content, and OA (2).

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.

Linear trends (1955 — 2003) of change in ocean heat content per unit surface area (W m — 2) for the 0 to 700 m layer, based on the work of Levitus et al. (2005a).

A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69 % of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Ocean.

The time series shows an overall trend of increasing heat content in the World Ocean with interannual and inter-decadal variations superimposed on this trend.

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

The geographical distribution of the linear trend of 0 to 700 m heat content for 1955 to 2003 for the World Ocean is shown in Figure 5.2.

The bottom icon will allow you to switch the news shown in the content body to either trending news (heat - based) or the latest news (newest to oldest).

Even if ultimately there is real confidence in ocean heat content data — i.e. the trends exceed the differences in data handling — without understanding changes in reflected SW and emitted IR it remains impossible to understand the global energy dynamic.

Predictions related to the impact of pinatubo, post 1984 trends, the «satellite cooling» mismatch, lgm tropical sst, water vapor increases, ocean heat content etc have all been made and verified within a short time period.

This suggests you may want to look to the heat content data and there in you will see some stations indicating a small heating after the 1998 spike; but, overall there is a trend towards the Pre-98 spike and an appearance of stabilization.)

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.

«Basically the interdecadal variability of ocean heat content observed previously (which has been the source of some debate and criticism) becomes smaller but the long - term trend does not change.

If you plot the NH data against the SH data, the heat content of both is varying more or less simultaneous (with larger amplitude in the SH) and the trend is near equal.

Secondly, unlike the global average surface temperature trend, which has a lag with respect to radiative forcing, there is no such lag when heat content is measured in Joules (see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf).

This sounds good since the trend in ocean heat content would be very, very close to the trend for the whole system, but just try finding any sort of calculation of this metric on his site.

To clarify my above comment, I was suggesting that the observed rise in ocean heat content would be substantial with or without the La Nina effect, representing primarily the persistence of a long term warming trend.

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

For the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans the increases of heat content (linear trends) are respectively 7.7, 3.3, and 3.5 x 1022 J.

I would not claim that heat content and upper atmosphere temperatures are unconnected to the surface trends.

One simply can not do arithmetic (least squares trends) on the temperature of environmental air and expect the result to reflect the changes in heat content.

Furthermore, this claim fails to note the long - term trend in ocean heat content, which is inexorably upward.

And yet, when you do trends of global data you are averaging air temperatures over intervals where the heat content is not continuous, and thus the trend that is the average temperature does not show the actual trend of the heat content.

Apparently, in the last decade or so, surface and lower troposphere temperature has risen more slowly than the long term trend, but ocean heat content to 2 km has risen faster than the previous two decades.

We asked you to support your claim that the resolution of the oceanic temperature data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content, which you have yet to provide.

You made a specific claim, that the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content.

Linear trends (1955 — 2003) of change in ocean heat content per unit surface area (W m — 2) for the 0 to 700 m layer, based on the work of Levitus et al. (2005a).

The consistency between these two data sets gives confidence in the ocean temperature data set used for estimating depth - integrated heat content, and supports the trends in SST reported in Chapter 3.

The geographical distribution of the linear trend of 0 to 700 m heat content for 1955 to 2003 for the World Ocean is shown in Figure 5.2.

The trend in oceanic heat content for the upper 1500 m over the six years from the beginning of 2005 to the end of 2010 is an increase of 0.55 watts per square meter, well outside the 0.1 W / m2 uncertainty.

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.

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69 % of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Ocean.

The time series shows an overall trend of increasing heat content in the World Ocean with interannual and inter-decadal variations superimposed on this trend.

The lack of a statistically significant warming trend in GMST does not mean that the planet isn't warming, firstly because GMST doesn't include the warming of the oceans (see many posts on ocean heat content) and secondly because a lack of a statistically significant warming trend doesn't mean that it isn't warming, just that it isn't warming at a sufficiently high rate to rule out the possibility of there being no warming over that period.

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

This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.

They are simply a first estimate.Where multiple analyses of the biases in other climatological variables have been produced, for example tropospheric temperatures and ocean heat content, the resulting spread in the estimates of key parameters such as the long - term trend has typically been signicantly larger than initial estimates of the uncertainty suggested.

Over short periods of time natural variability such as from ENSO for example, can create short term effects that run contrary to the longer term trend of increasing ocean heat content and higher tropospheric temperatures.

For these reasons, Section 5.2 mainly assessed upper - ocean observations for long - term trends in heat content and salinity.

I'm inclined to think that Ocean Heat Content, trends in land ice and Sea levels are more appropriate indicators of global climate change than surface air temperatures, but that's another issue.

The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.

I say the ocean heat content in the Atlantic is dropping, you show trend lines.