Sentences with phrase «measured ohc»

If you can't see the problem where the measured OHC level has suddenly become adjusted to the same trend as Agenda based pre-2003 models, then you obviously have both eyes blinded by too much AGW kool - aide.

I'm well aware of the measured OHC figures and I'm aware Gavin co-authored a paper comparing the model output to measured values to 2003.

He plucks out of context a sentence about OHC while ignoring the central argument we are making about that indicator — which is that if most of the heat is going into the oceans and we now have substantially better ways to measure OHC then why not use that measure.

Climate scientists wanted a more reliable way to measure OHC.

They did not have as good of way to measure OHC.

Not exact matches

So far, the data suggest it is a more responsive measure, but of course OHC alone is inadequate — not least because of coverage issues that are even worse than the GMT [global mean temperature] data sets.

(And I mean here «measured» OHC, not a value inferred by subtracting one big imprecise number from another big imprecise number.)

OHC may be one of the best measures of the top of atmosphere imbalance available - averaged over long time periods, global, representing (for the full depth of the oceans) ~ 93 % of the energy changes.

However because we don't measure ocean heat content below 2000m (about half of the total volume), the OHC you cite applies to the top half volume only, so the average dT in this part of volume is just under 0.1 K (0.08) consistent with the estimates.

It's stability would make it ideal in describing short term variations, but it can not be measured well enough to tell about those even with the present ARGO floats, past OHC is known still worse.

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.

Clearly, OHC is within the error bars of the measurement system, unless Argo can measure more accurately (unlikely).

When the rate of OHC decreases, more warming would be measured in the atmosphere, like the 1998 El Nino peak, followed by the lower 2005 El Nino peak, followed by the lower 2010 El Nino peak, which indicate a change in the rate of OH uptake.

For some inexplicable reason NOAA publish graphs of ocean heat content (OHC) but not ocean temperatures — the later are what the equipment measures, and what we relate to.

Total OHC is not a robust measure.

One has to remember that OHC is a cumulative measure and it is not impacted by yearly fluctuations in forcing as much as a non-cumulative temperature measure.

Changes in OHC, the dominant measure of EEI, should be a fundamental metric along with SLR.

If we could measure how much additional DLR there has been over say 30 years and then work out from OHC how much energy has been added to the oceans over that time then we could compare the energy of the two and see if they add up.

If the steric SLR or OHC increase were too big, it would be inconsistent with the measured global warming.

Even simply measuring net flux of energy into the Arctic via ocean currents from record high OHC would call into serious question the possibility that the long term decline in Arctic sea ice would reverse or «revert to the mean».

What he does not do, and should have done is plotted the change in the effect over time against some emperical measure of either temperature or surface heat content (either OHC directly for when we have the data, or glacial extents, or sea levels).

The OHC rise rate and satellites give independent measures of the imbalance.

If you go to Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog, you can see that Roger (a prominent skeptic and a big advocate of measuring global warming through OHC) relied on Josh Willis for the latest information on the subject and even has forwarded comments from skeptical blogs about ARGO data.

The TOA energy imbalance as measured by the 0 - 2000 meter change in OHC over the same period is 0.57 + / -0.4 W / m ^ 2 (90 % confidence interval).

At some point I guess we may measure it so accurately that the difference betwen OHC and AHC (from global and vertical temps profile) will be used as a measure of ENSO.

That confirms my opinion pronounced here a year or two ago, that we should use OHC as the measure of GW rate.

In using OHC as a measure of climate sensitivity, we see that there has been no pause and the climate is very sensitive to changes in GH gas forcing.

OHC was not as well measured back in 2004 as it is today.

As ocean heat drives climate far more than tropospheric sensible heat, OHC, with its huge effects on atmospheric circulation and the cryosphere is a much better measure of climate sensitivity.

Bender, Pielke has been clear on that: the OHC is the only effective metric to measure global warming (or cooling).

I think that it is interesting that warmists never use OHC as a measure of climate sensitivity.

Hot on the heels of last months reporting of a discrepancy in the ocean surface temperatures, a new paper in Nature (by Domingues et al, 2008) reports on the revisions of the ocean heat content (OHC) data — a correction required because of other discrepancies in measuring systems found last year.

[Response: That conversation is talking about closing the budget for very short time periods — which everyone acknowledges is not well constrained due to the uncertainties in the radiation flux calculations and the OHC measures.