Sentences with phrase «i.e. ocean heat content»

You may now understand why global temperature, i.e. ocean heat content, shows such a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years — as shown in the ice core records.

Not exact matches

We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~ 0.7 W / m2, implying that this «unrealised» forcing will lead to another 0.7 × 0.75 ºC — i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere).

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.

With the current GHG content in the atmosphere, more solar energy arrives than leaves via radiation -LRB-.85 + / -.15 Watt / m ^ 2), which raises the heat content of the terrestrial system, i.e., the average temperature over the whole earth + oceans + atmosphere.

I.e.: the claim that the growing heat content of the oceans tells us that «the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause.»

i.e. picking superseded work using early models that didn't fully account for damping due to ocean heat content.

Given that the most of the melting that goes on is from the underneath (i.e. under the water) and ocean heat content is at modern highs, and the oceans have even released a bit less energy than average over the past 15 years, it is not a coincidence that ice would de line even faster during this period.

You ostensibly believe CO2 dominates despite not having the requisite scientific evidence to back up that assertion, not to mention paleoclimate data which heartily contradicts it (i.e., CO2 levels rose while ocean heat content declined, or OHC rose rapidly while CO2 levels were constant).

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).

Ocean heat content changes are potentially a great way to evaluate climate model results that suggest that the planet is currently significantly out of equilibrium (i.e. it is absorbing more energy than it is emitting).

Over the longer term the accuracy is better, there is less wiggle room, and in fact we are able to balance out the energy flows — i.e. the increase in ocean heat content is pretty much what is expected from the anticipated radiative imbalance (see the figure).

This argument would make sense only if variations in ocean heat content alone rather than the sum of both the variation in OHC and of latent heat from ice melt were indicative of AGW (i.e. indicative of heat gained from an externally forced TOA imbalance).

Actually, I have concluded that ocean heat content is a much better metric to diagnose climate system heat changes (i.e. «global warming») than the surface temperature trends.

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.