Sentences with phrase «ocean heat content went»

Hmmm... tick - tock, ocean heat content goes higher and higher, greenhouse gas concentrations go higher and higher, Arctic sea ice volume goes lower and lower, ocean PH goes lower and lower, Greenland and Antarctic glacial mass goes lower and lower... my, that all - powerful AMO better hurry back real soon...

The current rate of ocean heat uptake is perfectly consistent with that theory and recovery from a little ice age period as far as ocean heat content goes.

Not exact matches

You speak of heat going into the oceans, but didn't the last IPCC report show model projections of ocean heat content vs observations, and there was no extra heat in the oceans?

The authors note that more than 85 % of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

The heat content of the ocean going down to a depth of 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) also hit a new record high last year, the report noted.

You speak of heat going into the oceans, but didn't the last IPCC report show model projections of ocean heat content vs observations, and there was no extra heat in the oceans?

Numerous denier arguments involving slight fluctuations in the global distribution of warmer vs cooler sea surface areas as supposed explanations of climate change neglect all the energy that goes into ocean heat content, melting large ice deposits and so forth.

It is not a delayed response that the ocean heat content has gone up significantly.

If a significant fraction of this heat lost from the ocean went into the atmosphere one might have expected the surface air temperature to have increased faster during this period than during the subsequent period of the 1990s when the ocean heat content gained > 5 X 10 ^ 22 J, but this is not what was observed (see reference Figure 2.7 c in the IPCC TAR Working group I).

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.

But if you google «noaa ocean heat and salt content» and compare the first two graphs («0 - 700m global ocean heat content» versus «0 - 2000m global ocean heat content») you will see that the sea SURFACE temperature is much more reflective of what is going on in the atmosphere than the oceans depths.

But going back to volcanoes, you still are seriously misinformed about how important the very active volcanic period of 1225 - 1275 was as a first big dent in the MWP as it relates to ocean heat content.

As it is, I don't care much for the overly large focus on near - surface tropospheric temperatures, as most of our weather and climate is going to be based on ocean dynamics and ocean heat content.

Temperatures not going the right direction so you awnt us to look at ocean heat content instead.

Flatline in total air heat content, flatline in air temperature, and yet some energy is flowing from the air into the ocean, going downwards.

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.

Since the IPCC's graph above up to 2003 shows that most of the energy from global warming is in the oceans, to a first approximation, Ocean Heat Content change since then is going to be close enough to the Total Heat Content change.

Go to oceans, then ocean heat content 700m, then find the chart on the N Atlantic.

So, for example, if we go through a period of relative higher solar output, and less volcanic activity, relatively less cloudiness, and higher greenhouse gas levels, these would all tend to increase ocean heat content.

Not all at once of course, but as mentioned above, when the PDO goes positive, we can likely expect a significant change in the atmospheric heat content as heat energy is transferred from the deep oceans back into the atmosphere.

If it's going into ocean heating (ocean heat content), that is enough mass that it might take a while to actually reach an equilibrium value.

The heating is also quite spatially variable as shown in the ocean heat content data with a significant fraction going into the Southern Oceans.

But worse is your paper with Nic Lewis, which seems to go out of its way to get a low ECS by purposely not using the best data available for surface temperatures, ocean heat content, and with no consideration of aerosols at all.

If a little less leaves than came in, the heat content of the oceans goes up; if a little more leaves than came in, the heat content of oceans goes down.

We are still going to have to wait for the «definitive» ocean heat content numbers, however, it is important to note that all analyses give long term increases in ocean heat content — particularly in the 1990s — whether they include the good ARGO data or exclude the XBTs or not).

Please find me good solid historical numbers of ocean heat content down to 4,000 meters going back say 1,000 years.

For those interested in the RPS weblog, go to http://climatesci.org/page/2/?s=ocean+heat+content&submit=Search and use «ocean heat content» in the search window.

And b) ocean heat content is going up, whereas it would be going down if the oceans were responsible.

These balance to within observational error, yet some still want to find a different reason for the two warmings going together that is unrelated to the fact that the forcing has increased, even though they have generally agreed that the three components exist: surface warming, ocean heat content increase and forcing increase.

«There was a big pulse in what was a precursor to the El Nino back in May, and so it looked like it was going to be a very strong El Nino, but that pulse of warm water in the ocean — the heat content, actually — just faded away, basically.

The Levitus ocean heat content data says that huge amounts of heat are going into the ocean and coming out of the ocean on a quarterly basis.

My point is it that we have a lot of heat going into the ocean and it is not quantified which matters if we are trying to work ocean heat content.

There is little Arctic amplification (relative to the global or hemispheric mean) in the summer months because the extra energy goes into evaporation and melting, while at the same time the extra sensible heat content of the oceans will eventually work its way into the atmosphere and have implications for the timing of seasonal re-growth in ice.

Now you can also look at ocean heat content, because that's where virtually all of the 0.85 W / m2 should be going.

The true confirmation of AGW theory is going to come via measurements of ocean heat content.