Sentences with phrase «in global ocean heat content»

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

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

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

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.

It did not «cause» the LIA, as indeed, you know the LIA was quite variable, but it made a serious dent in global ocean heat content, and thus, was the doorway to the LIA cooling period that followed.

A major feature of Figure 5.1 is the relatively large increase in global ocean heat content during 1969 to 1980 and a sharp decrease during 1980 to 1983.

However, the large - scale nature of heat content variability, the similarity of the Levitus et al. (2005a) and the Ishii et al. (2006) analyses and new results showing a decrease in the global heat content in a period with much better data coverage (Lyman et al., 2006), gives confidence that there is substantial inter-decadal variability in global ocean heat content.

Not exact matches

ocean system is faster than the global average since the 1960s; there is a small but widespread increase in heat content of the Arctic Oceanâ??

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).

With GRACE retrievals of surface mass commencing in 2002 and ARGO - derived estimates of global ocean heat content beginning a few years later, an era of unprecedented diagnostic capabilities began.

In the Common Era before the 21st century, changes in ocean heat content and in mountain glaciers were likely the main drivers of global sea - level changIn the Common Era before the 21st century, changes in ocean heat content and in mountain glaciers were likely the main drivers of global sea - level changin ocean heat content and in mountain glaciers were likely the main drivers of global sea - level changin mountain glaciers were likely the main drivers of global sea - level change.

However, lacking global observations of surface mass and ocean heat content capable of resolving year to year variations with sufficient accuracy, comprehensive diagnosis of the events early in the altimetry record (e.g. such as determining the relative roles of thermal expansion versus mass changes) has remained elusive.

The global increase in ocean heat content during the period 1993 to 2003 in two ocean models constrained by assimilating altimetric sea level and other observations (Carton et al., 2005; Köhl et al., 2006) is considerably larger than these observational estimates.

The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component.

Observed changes in ocean heat content have now been shown to be inconsistent with simulated natural climate variability, but consistent with a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences both on a global scale, and in individual ocean basins.

In 2008, climate change sceptic Roger Pielke Sr said this: «Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004».

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.

Numerous denier arguments involving slight fluctuations in the global distribution of warmer vs cooler sea surface areas as supposed explanations of climate change neglect all the energy that goes into ocean heat content, melting large ice deposits and so forth.

A fluctuation in the location of slightly warmer surface water could hardly cause the global increase in ocean heat content.

The objective of our study was to quantify the consistency of near - global and regional integrals of ocean heat content and steric sea level (from in situ temperature and salinity data), total sea level (from satellite altimeter data) and ocean mass (from satellite gravimetry data) from an Argo perspective.

It is certainly true that a very small temperature bias that is not random from instrument to instrument, but instead is the same over a large number of profiles can create systematic error in global estimates of ocean heat content.

This means that the heat content was «reset» to this earlier value, whereas the multi-decadal global climate model projects a more - or-less monotonic increase in ocean heat content.

The connection between global warming and the changes in ocean heat content has long been a subject of discussion in climate science.

However, it's easy to assess the error in the global mean ocean heat content based on the measurement error and spatial variability, and that is done in the Willis et al paper.

[Response: Theoretically you could have a change in ocean circulation that could cause a drop in global mean temperature even while the total heat content of the climate system increased.

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.

If La Nina / El Nino can affect global air temperatures in a period of a few years, than other changes in ocean currents (driven by AGW) can affect global atmospheric heat content in a few years.

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0 — 700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6).

The error is small enough to have confidence that the ocean heat content has been increasing in the past 15 years, during the so called «hiatus» in global warming.

But if you google «noaa ocean heat and salt content» and compare the first two graphs («0 - 700m global ocean heat content» versus «0 - 2000m global ocean heat content») you will see that the sea SURFACE temperature is much more reflective of what is going on in the atmosphere than the oceans depths.

«Global Ocean Heat Content 1955 - 2008 in Light of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problems.»

Also global heat content of the ocean (which constitutes 85 % of the total warming) has continued to rise strongly in this period, and ongoing warming of the climate system as a whole is supported by a very wide range of observations, as reported in the peer - reviewed scientific literature.

Several recent studies have also concluded that it is necessary to include data from the deep ocean in order to reconcile global heat content and the TOA energy imbalance, which DK12 failed to do.

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 global increase in ocean heat content during the period 1993 to 2003 in two ocean models constrained by assimilating altimetric sea level and other observations (Carton et al., 2005; Köhl et al., 2006) is considerably larger than these observational estimates.

But it does indeed add up to centennial variability in floods and drought and in global ocean and atmospheric heat content.

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.

In the following paper, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the «missing» heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m: Ref: «Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content» (Geophysical research letters — first published 10 May 201In the following paper, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the «missing» heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m: Ref: «Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content» (Geophysical research letters — first published 10 May 201in the ocean, below 700 m: Ref: «Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content» (Geophysical research letters — first published 10 May 201in reanalysis of global ocean heat content» (Geophysical research letters — first published 10 May 2013)

In the present study, satellite altimetric height and historically available in situ temperature data were combined using the method developed by Willis et al. [2003], to produce global estimates of upper ocean heat content, thermosteric expansion, and temperature variability over the 10.5 - year period from the beginning of 1993 through mid-2003.In the present study, satellite altimetric height and historically available in situ temperature data were combined using the method developed by Willis et al. [2003], to produce global estimates of upper ocean heat content, thermosteric expansion, and temperature variability over the 10.5 - year period from the beginning of 1993 through mid-2003.in situ temperature data were combined using the method developed by Willis et al. [2003], to produce global estimates of upper ocean heat content, thermosteric expansion, and temperature variability over the 10.5 - year period from the beginning of 1993 through mid-2003...

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.

So where do all these graphs showing global heat content that include the heat hiding in the deep ocean come from?

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).

The so called «climate sensitivity» factor is a theoretical pretension in view of the incontrovertible fact that the true metric of global warmth is ocean heat content.

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.

The evolution of global mean surface temperatures, zonal means and fields of sea surface temperatures, land surface temperatures, precipitation, outgoing longwave radiation, vertically integrated diabatic heating and divergence of atmospheric energy transports, and ocean heat content in the Pacific is documented using correlation and regression analysis.

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 gain in ocean heat content has been remarkably consistent over this period, closely paralleling the rise in global greenhouse gases (we must not forget the rapid rise in both Methane and N2O as well).

In the absence of changes to other climate forcings and assuming continued rise of CO2 AGW would be falsified by falling / static ocean heat content or falling / static global average temperature.

As you know, Isaac Held recently discussed the relative contributions of forced and unforced variations to global surface temperature change in terms of the direction of changes in ocean heat content.

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.