Sentences with phrase «ocean heat content over»

As I mentioned to you before, the rise in the ocean heat content over the past few decades is easily distinguishable from zero.

Jim D. you write «As I mentioned to you before, the rise in the ocean heat content over the past few decades is easily distinguishable from zero.»

These trends are also accompanied by rising sea levels and upper ocean heat content over similar multi-decadal time scales in the tropical Atlantic.

To answer this, we need to view observations of ocean heat content over the past 40 years.

That represents 1.2 % of the approximately 150 Zettajoule rise in ocean heat content over the same time.

The IPCC's predicted rate of increase in ocean heat content over the past decade or two has proven to be four and a half times greater than the observed rate of increase.

Alec Rawls: Just because we don't have any direct measurements of ocean heat content over this period doesn't mean we can ignore the hysteresis of the oceans, as Leif does.

If Schmidt and Muscheler want to dismiss a solar explanation for late 20th century warming by invoking the highly speculative assumption that GMAST is a good proxy for ocean heat content over with the 20th century, that fine.

Given that it is all eventually going to come back to the issue of the gradual gain we've been seeing in ocean heat content over many decades, the most accurate thing we can say is that 2014's warmth is very consistent with the general accumulation of energy in Earth's climate system caused by increasing GH gases and is well accounted for dynamically in global climate models.

I guess from the diference between ocean heat content over freezing point as opposed to the OHC change since 1970?

Humans caused a flattening in ocean heat content over the last 8 years — the new null?

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.

So I thought I was understanding the whole thing pretty well and then along comes this Rosenthal paper on Pacific Ocean heat content over the past 10,000 years.

The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the changes since 1955).

This allows the remaining heat to be transported down deeper into the ocean, causing an increase in ocean heat content over the long - term.

We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~ 0.7 W / m2, implying that this «unrealised» forcing will lead to another 0.7 × 0.75 ºC — i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Not exact matches

Ocean survey flight path and instrument deployment points over shaded ocean heat content (OHC) that was calculated from survey Ocean survey flight path and instrument deployment points over shaded ocean heat content (OHC) that was calculated from survey ocean heat content (OHC) that was calculated from survey data.

The region also experienced the highest rates of sea - level rise over the world, indicating large increases in ocean heat content and leading to substantial impacts on small island states in the region.

The purple lines in the graph below show how the heat content of the whole ocean has changed over the past five decades.

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.

The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth's heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90 % of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.

Last week there was a paper by Smith and colleagues in Science that tried to fill in those early years, using a model that initialises the heat content from the upper ocean — with the idea that the structure of those anomalies control the «weather» progression over the next few years.

The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component.

With the current GHG content in the atmosphere, more solar energy arrives than leaves via radiation -LRB-.85 + / -.15 Watt / m ^ 2), which raises the heat content of the terrestrial system, i.e., the average temperature over the whole earth + oceans + atmosphere.

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.

On the other hand, by comparison from Levitus (2008), heat content of the ocean has increased by approx. 1e23J over the last 20 years.

Better information about ocean heat content is also available to help there, but this is still a work in progress and is a great example of why it is harder to attribute changes over small time periods.

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.

This was explicitly discussed in Hansen et al, 1997 where they predicted that over the last few decades of the 20th Century, there should have been a significant increase in ocean heat content (OHC).

It is certainly true that a very small temperature bias that is not random from instrument to instrument, but instead is the same over a large number of profiles can create systematic error in global estimates of ocean heat content.

The ocean heat content analysis by Barnett (and in other groups) show that the changes are most consistent with the GHGs becoming increasingly dominant over this time.

Please explain the (difference between the) aerosol amounts / composition / effects (especially for ocean heat content) over the NH and SH in the 2001 GCMs vs. current GCMs for the calculations of the 1945 - 1975 period and the 1975 - 200x period.

Paul S (# 1)-- Since the Planck Response dominates over positive feedback responses to temperature, wouldn't a La Nina - like failure of surface temperature to rise lead to an increase rather than a reduction in energy accumulation compared with accumulation during a surface warming — presumably a small increase, so that the observed rise in ocean heat content would still be substantial?

This implies that the estimates of ocean heat content changes over the last 10 years are the most accurate that we have had to date and thus provide a good target to compare against the models.

Some people looked at parts of that work (for example, the lower right panel of Figure 1) and point out how the climate model oceans show a smooth and pretty much unbroken increase in heat content over the historical period.

You may now understand why global temperature, i.e. ocean heat content, shows such a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years — as shown in the ice core records.

Graphing the ocean heat content since 1955, a 0.1 °C rise over the whole 700m top layer took place before 2010.

Given that the most of the melting that goes on is from the underneath (i.e. under the water) and ocean heat content is at modern highs, and the oceans have even released a bit less energy than average over the past 15 years, it is not a coincidence that ice would de line even faster during this period.

The implication is that if climate change, driven by increasing greenhouse gases from human activity, increases the heat content of the ocean, storms passing over it will be able to draw ever more moisture that they can unload as rain.

We now have excellent proxy volcanic data and pretty good ocean heat content proxy data over the past 2000 years, during which their were both warmer and cooler periods.

Converting from heat content to degrees C, the ocean warming over the last 30 years is less than 0.1 degrees C, which is probably well within the error bars or the Argo float's measurement ability.

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. (2013).

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 2009 State of the Climate Report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us that climate change is real because of rising surface air temperatures since 1880 over land and the ocean, ocean acidification, sea level rise, glaciers melting, rising specific humidity, ocean heat content increasing, sea ice retreating, glaciers diminishing, Northern Hemisphere snow cover decreasing, and so many other lines of evidence.

This was my mental equation dF = dH / dt + lambda * dT where dF is the forcing change over a given period (1955 - 2010), dH / dt is the rate of change of ocean heat content, and dT is the surface temperature change in the same period, with lambda being the equilibrium sensitivity parameter, so the last term is the Planck response to balance the forcing in the absence of ocean storage changes.

«The forcing should not balance the ocean heat content increase, and it should apply over the same period anyway (1955 - 2010) which 1.6 W / m2 doesn't.»

The 2012 paper, World Ocean Heat Content and Thermosteric Sea Level change (0 - 2000 m), 1955 - 2010, by Levitus et al. points to the fact that over the study's span, to a depth of 2000 meters, the oceans have warmed by an average of 0.09 C.

The lack of a statistically significant warming trend in GMST does not mean that the planet isn't warming, firstly because GMST doesn't include the warming of the oceans (see many posts on ocean heat content) and secondly because a lack of a statistically significant warming trend doesn't mean that it isn't warming, just that it isn't warming at a sufficiently high rate to rule out the possibility of there being no warming over that period.

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...

«A global ocean heat content change (OHC) trend of 0.55 ± 0.1 Wm ^ 2 is estimated over the time period 2005 — 2010.