Sentences with phrase «ocean heat content data do»

And the sea surface temperature and ocean heat content data do not support the existence of a human - induced global warming signal.

Not exact matches

Rather than use a model - based estimate, as did Hansen (2005) and Trenberth (2009), the authors achieve this by calculating it from observations of ocean heat content (down to 1800 metres) from the PMEL / JPL / JIMAR data sets over the period July 2005 to June 2010 - a time period dominated by the superior ARGO - based system.

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.

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.

Unfortunately we do not have any reliable and comprehensive measurements of upper ocean temperature and heat content prior to 2003, when ARGO measurements replaced the old expendable and spotty XBT data.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ideally the zero point would be modulated by ocean heat content and / or ssts, since it is the comparison between energy into the oceans vs. energy radiated back out that determines warming or cooling, but we don't have much historical ohc or sst data so a fixed zero point would seem to be the best that can be done.

Unfortunately, we don't have good ocean heat content data for this period, while the data we do have — global mean atmospheric surface temperature — is dominated by ocean oscillations.

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..

Then about three years ago, those same scientists, using those same data sets, admitted there was a pause, and spent their energy explaining why it didn't matter (ocean heat content being a better proxy was the most popular).

Gavin, I think it would be worth adding to the post 1) the main reason why there was so much doubt about the Lyman et al results (the unphysical melt amounts for 2003 - 5), 2) the expected role of GRACE in obtaining a reliable result, 3) the fact that the ARGOs don't measure the deep oceans, and 4) that it's inappropriate to take the remaining ARGO data (shown in the Lyman et al correction to be essentially flat for the last two years) and draw any conclusions about ocean heat content trends for that period.

As for ocean heat content, Argo hasn't been in the water long enough to show a clear signal, and there have been problems with the data, including a significant correction (you do recall the correction to the UAH satellite record after years of insistence that their data showed the surface temp record trends were completely wrong?).

I don't prefer one over the other as an intrinsic metric (they provide two different pieces of information), but I find the ocean heat content data to be a much less mature data set than the surface temperature data set.

Or should we start with Judith's neglecting to mention in her recent WSJ op - ed that newer data exists for the calculation she did with Lewis, especially for ocean heat content?

Does anyone have the formula to calculate the ocean heat content from temperature data.

OVERVIEW Before the ARGO floats were deployed, there were so few temperature and salinity observations at depths below 700 meters that the NODC does not present ocean heat content data during that period for depths of 0 - 2000 meters on an annual basis.