Sentences with phrase «measuring ocean heat content»

Having said that, I do like Pielke's approach of measuring ocean heat content anomaly as the best way to estimate sensitivity.

There have been advances in the last decade or so in measuring ocean heat content.

GOOS helps us to understand climate through measuring ocean heat content and sea level.

GOOS helps us to understand climate through measuring ocean heat content and sea level.

1) thermal expansion of the oceans: measured ocean heat content keeps increasing and this causes the ocean to expand.

I know nothing about climate science, but just reading your post I wonder if it is possible that the decrease in measured ocean heat content is mostly a factor of having better tools (the ARGO floating profilers)?

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.

Both are used to measure ocean heat content.

I can think of a number of reasons why measured Ocean Heat content may be increasing or seem to be increasing even when albedo due to clouds increases reducing the amount of heat to the surface.

Not exact matches

Nations of the world have launched a cooperative program to measure changing ocean heat content, distributing more than 3000 Argo floats around the world ocean, with each float repeatedly diving to a depth of 2 km and back [66].

The most promising approach is to measure the rate of changing heat content of the ocean, atmosphere, land, and ice [64].

The ongoing difficulty of accurately measuring the Earth's ocean heat content has led to premature «skeptic» claims about ocean cooling.

Given those assumptions, looking at the forcing over a long - enough multi-decadal period and seeing the temperature response gives an estimate of the transient climate response (TCR) and, additionally if an estimate of the ocean heat content change is incorporated (which is a measure of the unrealised radiative imbalance), the ECS can be estimated too.

The key points of the paper are that: i) model simulations with 20th century forcings are able to match the surface air temperature record, ii) they also match the measured changes of ocean heat content over the last decade, iii) the implied planetary imbalance (the amount of excess energy the Earth is currently absorbing) which is roughly equal to the ocean heat uptake, is significant and growing, and iv) this implies both that there is significant heating «in the pipeline», and that there is an important lag in the climate's full response to changes in the forcing.

The chart shows that starting in the late 1940's, we have been able to measure the heat content of the top 2000 meters of ocean accurately enough so that annual changes in ocean heat content of less than 1e22 joules can be detected and tracked.

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.

Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..

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.

This warming can be seen in measurements of troposphere temperatures measured by weather balloons and satellites, in measurements of ocean heat content, sea surface temperature (measured in situ and by satellites), air temperatures over the ocean, air temperature over land.

The demonstrated ability of GRACE to measure interannual OBP variability on a global scale is unprecedented and has important implications for assessing deep ocean heat content and ocean dynamics.

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.

Sea level and ocean heat content are virtually one and the same [more heat and ocean expands] and are notoriously difficult to measure accurately.

The difference in the climatological mean June - July - August ocean heat content as measured by the depth of the 20 °C isotherm (in meters) overlaid with corresponding differences in ocean heat transport vectors (W / m) between two numerical climate models with slightly different bathymetries.

According to the paper, «arguably, ocean heat content — from the surface to the seafloor — might be a more appropriate measure of how much our planet is warming.»

Argo, an international program to measure changes in the ocean's heat content and salinity, was launched in 1999 [Roemmich et al., 2015; Riser et al., 2016].

I hope you are aware that Ocean Heat Content is measured in Joules, not degrees centigrade.

SST's are often, but not always, better gauges for how much heat is leaving the ocean on the way to the atmosphere rather than how much remains at depth to be measured as ocean heat content.

Further ocean heat content is not a SI unit and isn't even a measured unit, it is computed.

Related to this is the fact that many people get confused about sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content, and understanding their fundamental difference, how they are measured, and what they are measuring is important.

With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

''... how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?»

TE, you seem to prefer the radiance of that satellite to the ocean heat content which has been rising significantly in the last decade as a measure of the imbalance.

The rate of warming as measured by ocean heat content changes over the last 4 years shows that we have DOUBLED the top - of - atmosphere energy imbalance from 0.6 watts per meter squared to 1.1 watts per meter squared in the last 7 years.

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..

Arguably, the most appropriate single variable in the Earth's system that can be used to measure global warming is ocean heat content - from the surface to the seafloor.

The short term variability observed with temperature is also seen with related measures, including ocean heat content and sea level rise, although the technology adequate for assessing short term variability in these measures has been lacking until relatively recently.

«If you aren't measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren't measuring global warming.»

They are mainly derived from the Shaviv reference (provided in the link above) that concludes that the solar signal is amplified as indicated by the magnitude of changes in ocean heat content (and other less direct measures) over the course of the 11 year solar cycle.

At that point you try and measure changes in heat content of the upper ocean, more precisely, the flow of energy into and out of the upper ocean by measuring the change in heat content over time.

Eli, Pielke Snr says: «There does not need to be years of record to obtain statistically significant measures of upper ocean heat content.

The most promising approach is to measure the rate of changing heat content of the ocean, atmosphere, land, and ice [64].

Deech56 — «With the recent GRACE adjustment, I wonder how the possible larger contribution of SLR due to thermal expansion fits in with measured sea ocean heat content?»

With the recent GRACE adjustment, I wonder how the possible larger contribution of SLR due to thermal expansion fits in with measured sea ocean heat content?

Nations of the world have launched a cooperative program to measure changing ocean heat content, distributing more than 3000 Argo floats around the world ocean, with each float repeatedly diving to a depth of 2 km and back [66].

Whereas measures of ocean temperature are almost equivalent to heat content, measures of atmospheric temperature are extremely inaccurate metrics for heat content.

The first part concerning Trenberth's «missing heat» debate, which is to reconcile the very uncertain TOA radiative imbalance measured by satellites with ocean heat content increase.

I noted that between ~ 1995 and ~ 2005 the heat content of top 600 m of the world's oceans allegedly increased by ~ 10 ^ 20 J. Big number but they can not measure Joules, they measure temperatures.

* There is no such thing as a meaningful «Earth» temperature, as some regions are cooling, some are warming, the depths of the ocean have different levels of heat content that can not be uniformly measured against a mean, etc..

The paper Cooling of the global ocean since 2003 (Loehles 2009) looks at ocean heat content as measured by Argo.

For example, if you could get a futures contract up and running which paid off against say an index of ocean heat content which is probably the best measured and by far the most important global metric available, you would find out in short order what the market really thought about AGW.