Sentences with phrase «ocean heat uptake from»

Hence the deduction of the estimated change in ocean heat uptake from the estimated change in forcing before comparison with the change in global temperature to derive sensitivity.

Mikel, The IPCC figure (here) describes the differing projections of ocean heat uptake from model to model.

Ocean heat uptake from 700 — 2000 m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009.

Not exact matches

This was due to a combination of factors: a less active sun, higher levels of cooling aerosols from volcanoes and Asian factories, and increased heat uptake by the oceans.

For one thing, the fit neglects lags in the system (such as those resulting from ocean heat uptake) and it also neglects changes in albedo and other radiative factors.

The treatment of uncertainty in the ocean's uptake of heat varies, from assuming a fixed value for a model's ocean diffusivity (Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001) to trying to allow for a wide range of ocean mixing parameters (Knutti et al., 2002, 2003) or systematically varying the ocean's effective diffusivity (e.g., Forest et al., 2002, 2006; Frame et al., 2005).

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans.

Your attempt to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity from the 20th C won't work because a) the forcings are not that well known (so the error in your estimate is large), b) the climate is not in equilibrium — you need to account for the uptake of heat in the ocean at least.

In these experiments the climate sensitivity was 2.7 deg C for a doubling of CO2, the net aerosol forcing from 1940 to 2000 was around -0.7 W / m2 (55 % of the total forcing, -1.27, from 1850 to 2000), and the ocean uptake of heat was well - matched to recent observations.

If you look at the Fig. 3a in our review (red lines at the top) you see that many previous estimates based on the observed warming / ocean heat uptake had a tendency to peak at values below 3 °C (that review is from 2008).

These scaling factors compensate for under - or overestimates of the amplitude of the model response to forcing that may result from factors such as errors in the model's climate sensitivity, ocean heat uptake efficiency or errors in the imposed external forcing.

We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum.

«But the other thing I want to point out,» England added, «is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at such high concentrations compared to what they were 100 years ago that you don't need to bring heat back up from the ocean to the surface to get future warming — you just need to slow down the heat uptake by the ocean, and greenhouse gases will do the rest.»

The near - linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as: «Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation» «The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing»

I got a most probable value of 1.55 C / doubling, a 17 % to 83 % range of 1.41 C to 3.27 C / doubling, and a 5 % to 95 % range of 1.18 C to 6.2 C / doubling... not far from your values (but I assumed a little higher total heat accumulation, including deep ocean uptake equal to 10 % of the 0 - 2000M value, and some additonal heat for ice melt and land mass warming).

«In our mor recent global model simulations the ocean heat - uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.

If some of the ocean heat uptake during the last 20 years has shifted from the shallow and warm parts to the deeper and colder parts this would reduce the total thermal expansion even if the total heat flux into the oceans remained the same.

The relative roles can easily be computed from OHC data and data on ocean heat uptake efficiency and radiative restoring (reflected in the climate feedback parameter).

Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models.

Typically there is also a single parameter controlling the rate of ocean heat uptake, and forcings (from aerosols in particular, this forcing being quite uncertain) can of course readily be adjusted.

«Results imply that global and regional warming rates depend sensitively on regional ocean processes setting the [ocean heat uptake] pattern, and that equilibrium climate sensitivity can not be reliably estimated from transient observations.»

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.

* In calculating ECS in energy balance models, ocean heat uptake (dQ = 0.7 W / m2) is subtracted from the forcing change (dF)

Using 1981 - 2011 ocean heat data (again for 0 - 2000m, from Levitus et al, 2012), rather than the last 10 years, to compute the trend would have reduced the recent - period OHU estimate, scaling up as before to allow for heat uptake in the deeper ocean and elsewhere, by 0.08 W / m.

Increased ocean heat uptake could cause a permanent deepening of the thermocline in the EEP and a consequent shift from present day ENSO variability to greater amplitude and / or more frequent El Niños (55).

The recent transient warming (combined with ocean heat uptake and our knowledge of climate forcings) points towards a «moderate» value for the equilibrium sensitivity, and this is consistent with what we know from other analyses.

9.3.1 Global Mean Response 9.3.1.1 1 % / yr CO2 increase (CMIP2) experiments 9.3.1.2 Projections of future climate from forcing scenario experiments (IS92a) 9.3.1.3 Marker scenario experiments (SRES) 9.3.2 Patterns of Future Climate Change 9.3.2.1 Summary 9.3.3 Range of Temperature Response to SRES Emission Scenarios 9.3.3.1 Implications for temperature of stabilisation of greenhouse gases 9.3.4 Factors that Contribute to the Response 9.3.4.1 Climate sensitivity 9.3.4.2 The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake 9.3.4.3 Thermohaline circulation changes 9.3.4.4 Time - scales of response 9.3.5 Changes in Variability 9.3.5.1 Intra-seasonal variability 9.3.5.2 Interannual variability 9.3.5.3 Decadal and longer time - scale variability 9.3.5.4 Summary 9.3.6 Changes of Extreme Events 9.3.6.1 Temperature 9.3.6.2 Precipitation and convection 9.3.6.3 Extra-tropical storms 9.3.6.4 Tropical cyclones 9.3.6.5 Commentary on changes in extremes of weather and climate 9.3.6.6 Conclusions

Ocean temperature must be measured regularly around the world from the ocean surface to the ocean floor to reduce uncertainty in ocean heat uptake, which accounts for over 90 % of global warOcean temperature must be measured regularly around the world from the ocean surface to the ocean floor to reduce uncertainty in ocean heat uptake, which accounts for over 90 % of global warocean surface to the ocean floor to reduce uncertainty in ocean heat uptake, which accounts for over 90 % of global warocean floor to reduce uncertainty in ocean heat uptake, which accounts for over 90 % of global warocean heat uptake, which accounts for over 90 % of global warming.

If you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten years.

Warming in the pipeline very largely reflects ocean heat uptake, which reduces the extent to which surface temperatures need to rise in order to counteract increased forcing from CO2 etc..

Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100 - 150 years with the change in «radiative forcing» (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

I might also note that the method returns ECS values that are generally similar to those reported for AR5 GCMs when ECM - derived temperature and ocean - heat - uptake predictions are input to the model instead of the observed values (AR5 GCM values are obtained from the «Climate Explorer» web site).

Over long time periods, this tropical heat uptake is roughly balanced by heat release from the ocean to the atmosphere in other regions closer to the poles.

Supplementary Information (SI), along with the values I calculate from their 1996 — 2005 GMST data, averaged ERF data for 2000 and ocean heat uptake data (taking the trend over 1996 — 2005), and alternatively by accurately digitising ERF ΔF and ΔF − ΔQ values in Marvel et al..

For equilibrium efficacies, I show estimates both from the raw data (save for iRF), and with the ocean heat uptake ΔQ divided by 0.86 to estimate the full TOA imbalance ΔN and the GISS - E2 - R equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.3 °C replaced by its effective climate sensitivity, taken as 2.0 °C.