Sentences with phrase «in ocean heat content data»

As shown in the above linked essay, there is nothing in the ocean heat content data or satellite - era sea surface temperature data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases have had any impact on the warming of the global oceans.

It's a long post, I'll grant you that, but if you're interested in ocean heat content data, it's worth a read.

The heating is also quite spatially variable as shown in the ocean heat content data with a significant fraction going into the Southern Oceans.

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.

Not exact matches

Figure 3 is the comparison of the upper level (top 700m) ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC and PMEL (Lyman et al (2010), doi).

In order to compare these satellite - based observations with ocean heat content it is necessary to anchor the data to an absolute scale.

Also notable is the substantial variation in ocean heating rates between the three different ocean heat content data sets.

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.

Another figure worth updating is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC.

A total of 2.3 million salinity profiles were used in this analysis, about one - third of the amount of data used in the ocean heat content estimates in Section 5.2.2.

And since we don't have good ocean heat content data, nor any satellite observations, or any measurements of stratospheric temperatures to help distinguish potential errors in the forcing from internal variability, it is inevitable that there will be more uncertainty in the attribution for that period than for more recently.

The models serve merely to quantify these basic facts more accurately, calculate the regional climate response, and compute effects (such as the expected increase in ocean heat content or sea level) which can be tested against observed data from the real world.

The next figure is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC.

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.

The error bars on the CERES retrievals, particularly when all 4 sensors are available are significantly less than the (reported) error bars on the ocean heat content data in the Lyman et al work.

Previous work by Barnett's group showed that coupled models when forced with greenhouse gases did give ocean heat content changes similar to that shown in the data.

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.

This seems sloppy to me, since the SST dataset is far more reliable than the upper ocean heat content dataset, and as far as I can tell the Arctic is underrepresented in the data.

Secondly, and even more important, the increase in observed heat content (based on NOAA data) is near equal for the NH and the SH (see: World oceans), while the area's / volumes are different.

Which implies that since the late» 40's - early» 50's we have had a data collection system deployed capable of measuring and tracking the annual TEMPERATURE of the top 2000 meters of the oceans of the world (necessary to calculate its heat content)-- all of them — with a precision and accuracy in the millidegree range.

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.

This is at least ten additional years compared to the majority of previously published studies that have used the instrumental record in attempts to constrain the ECS.We show that the additional 10 years of data, and especially 10 years of additional ocean heat content data, have significantly narrowed the probability density function of the ECS.

Refer to: A. ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0 - 700 Meters) Data B. North Pacific Ocean Heat Content Shift In The Late 1980s C. North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0 - 700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables

I don't know about all of you, but I do find that the uncertainty around e.g. the various issues related to ocean heat content or issues regarding connecting the Argo float network to other data networks is SO much better covered in Judith's bizarre and uniquely repetitive mischaracterizations of other scientists» comments, than by the published science and its critical review.

The increase in deep ocean heat content is also a robust result in data sets that do not include reanalysis.

For example, as discussed in Nuccitelli et al. (2012), the ocean heat content data set compiled by a National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) team led by Sydney Levitus shows that over the past decade, approximately 30 percent of ocean heat absorption has occurred in the deeper ocean layers, consistent with the results of Balmaseda et al. (20data set compiled by a National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) team led by Sydney Levitus shows that over the past decade, approximately 30 percent of ocean heat absorption has occurred in the deeper ocean layers, consistent with the results of Balmaseda et al. (20Data Center (NODC) team led by Sydney Levitus shows that over the past decade, approximately 30 percent of ocean heat absorption has occurred in the deeper ocean layers, consistent with the results of Balmaseda et al. (2013).

Temperatures measured by the ARGO floats and the XBTs before them are rising in the raw data, and the ocean heat content (OHC) is simply observed temperature change scaled by the thermal mass of the ocean layer in question - not some kind of complex model.

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 data used in estimating the Levitus et al. (2005a) ocean temperature fields (for the above heat content estimates) do not include sea surface temperature (SST) observations, which are discussed in Chapter 3.

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.

It is true that the NODC's ARGO - era ocean heat content (0 - 2000 meters) continues to warm globally, but always recall that the ARGO data had to be adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create that warming.

Chen and Tung (2014) analyse the ocean heat content data maintained by a Japanese research group, Ishii et al (2005), and make a number of statements about the cause of multi-decadal fluctuations in ocean heat mixing rates.

However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes.

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...

The paper also includes this useful table illustrating that according to observational data, ocean heat content has indeed accumulated rapidly in the deep oceans in recent years.

Another problem with Curry's analysis is that she simply eyeballs the ocean heat content graph in Lyman & Johnson (2013) and concludes that since 2003, the data look flat.

However, as we recently discussed, the increase in deep ocean heat content is a robust result in data sets that do not include reanalysis.

Evidence of warming from ocean heat content measurements comes from a data set that is not mature and interpretation of this warming is confounded by the long time scales of circulation and heat transfer in the ocean.

When the first analyses of Ocean Heat Content calculated from old temperature data from the oceans where first published in the early 2000's, they were described as the «Smoking Gun».

The Guardian article brings in additional data: the Arctic sea ice minimum and ocean heat content.

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.

Compare the professionalism of NASA's scientists and programs with that of Spencer and Christy (who told Congress in 2013 that no warming had occurred in 15 years, contradicting his own data and laughably contradicting the trend in atmosphere + ocean heat content).

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

However, the much - adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.

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..

The Ocean Heat Content data also accounts for changes in salinity.

If the model Curry and colleagues discussed had incorporated the latest ocean heat content data, their relatively low best estimate for climate sensitivity would have been more in line with previously reported, higher estimates.

It's based on the Tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data illustrated in Figure 3.