However, the spatial pattern of the PDO includes warming in some places and cooling in others; in fact, changes consistent with the PDO can be seen in the geographic pattern of
observed ocean heat content changes.
Not exact matches
However, radiation
changes at the top of the atmosphere from the 1980s to 1990s, possibly related in part to the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, appear to be associated with reductions in tropical upper - level cloud cover, and are linked to
changes in the energy budget at the surface and
changes in
observed ocean heat content.
You've got the radiative physics, the measurements of
ocean temperature and land temperature, the
changes in
ocean heat content (Hint — upwards, whereas if if was just a matter of circulation moving
heat around you might expect something more simple) and of course
observed predictions such as stratospheric cooling which you don't get when warming occurs from oceanic circulation.
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.
More than 95 % of the 5 yr running mean of the surface temperature
change since 1850 can be replicated by an integration of the sunspot data (as a proxy for
ocean heat content), departing from the average value over the period of the sunspot record (~ 40SSN), plus the superimposition of a ~ 60 yr sinusoid representing the
observed oceanic oscillations.
«Basically the interdecadal variability of
ocean heat content observed previously (which has been the source of some debate and criticism) becomes smaller but the long - term trend does not
change.
In this work the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is estimated based on
observed near - surface temperature
change from the instrumental record,
changes in
ocean heat content and detailed RF time series.
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.
Cheng, L., et al. (2016),
Observed and simulated full - depth
ocean heat content changes for 1970 — 2005, Ocean Sci., 12, 925 — 935, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-925-
ocean heat content changes for 1970 — 2005,
Ocean Sci., 12, 925 — 935, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-925-
Ocean Sci., 12, 925 — 935, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-925-2016.
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?
Slow variations in upper
ocean heat content that have been
observed in the subpolar and marginal ice zone regions of the Atlantic since the mid-twentieth century are thought to be related to
changes in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
The
observed patterns of surface warming, temperature
changes through the atmosphere, increases in
ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to rising levels of CO2 and other human - induced
changes (see Question 5).
Looking at the last decade, it is clear that the
observed rate of
change of upper
ocean heat content is a little slower than previously (and below linear extrapolations of the pre-2003 model output), and it remains unclear to what extent that is related to a reduction in net radiative forcing growth (due to the solar cycle, or perhaps larger than expected aerosol forcing growth), or internal variability, model errors, or data processing — arguments have been made for all four, singly and together.