Sentences with phrase «ocean measurements do»

The disadvantage is that comprehensive ocean measurements do not go back very far.

It really doesn't seem reasonable to attribute ocean imbalances selectively to a particular prominent forcing (GHG's) when «comprehensive ocean measurements do not go back very far».

Not exact matches

Now, using gravity measurements collected by Cassini, scientists have confirmed that Enceladus does in fact harbor a large subsurface ocean near its south pole, beneath those tiger stripes.

«To mount an ocean experiment to do these same sorts of measurements could take three weeks of ship time — you're talking at least a million dollars,» he says.

Their simulations did not agree with measurements of ocean heat made by scientists since the 1970s, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

To do this, they combined ocean wave data available from measurements taken by ocean buoys, with nonlinear analysis of the underlying water wave equations.

Observations of upper ocean heat show some short term cooling but measurements to greater depths (down to 2000 metres) show a steady warming trend: However, the ocean cooling myth does seem to be widespread so I'll shortly update this page to clarify the issue.

For example, measurement of the ocean heat storage doesn't support any slowdown.

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.

We do not know the exact measurements yet, but it's available in ocean blue, light blue and light pink.

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.

Naturally, one can do better with measurements of subsurface ocean temperatures and glacier volume (which affects latent heat content of the Earth), but the surface temperature does pretty well for a start.

For example, due to the lack of ocean data, secondary data is often used to infer what the ocean is doing — thus, the AMO analysis relies not on ocean temperature measurements, but rather on air pressure measurements as a proxy for ocean behavior — iffy at best.

But what do cloud measurements indicate for the ocean regions with most cooling?

But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we've seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread....

However, it's easy to assess the error in the global mean ocean heat content based on the measurement error and spatial variability, and that is done in the Willis et al paper.

Mercury levels in the upper layers of the ocean are up 3.4 x since the beginning of the industrial revolution, according to the first study to have done truly global measurements of marine mercury levels by taking thousands of samples around the world over half a decade.

Do the models use field measurements to verify assumptions regarding heat transfer between air and ocean?

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.

Vertical land movements such as resulting from glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), tectonics, subsidence and sedimentation influence local sea level measurements but do not alter ocean water volume; nonetheless, they affect global mean sea level through their alteration of the shape and hence the volume of the ocean basins containing the water.

Despite measurements of total heat absorbed by the oceans by Levitus et al. (2000) and Levitus et al. (2001), «20th - century sea level remains an enigma — we do not know whether warming or melting was dominant, and the budget is far from closed,» according to Munk (2003).

There's assumptions about the oceans, because we don't have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.»

By contrast, there is quite a lot of data now telling us that CO2 is not a climate driver: We did the experiment of adding a large slug of CO2 to the air and the temperature stopped rising in 1997, the stratosphere stopped cooling in 1995 and the oceans showed no warming down to 700m when we replaced guesswork with accurate measurement in 2003.

The work in question takes measurements from one locale, and doesn't publish conclusions, rather Doney's statements are giving his opinion about what he read, «Long - term ocean acidification trends are clearly evident over the past several decades in open - ocean time - series and hydrographic survey data, and the trends are consistent with the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (Dore et al., 2009).»

The basic assumption behind the Cowtan and Way (2013) paper appears to be, because the HADCRUT4 data doesn't capture the Arctic Ocean (there are no temperature measurements there other than sea surface temperatures when sea ice melts seasonally), the warming in the Arctic is underreported.

Aside from continuing to misunderstand that the «missing heat» is about having an inadequate global climate observational network (mainly because we don't have good measurements of deep ocean heat), observational data have demonstrated that water vapor, and likely clouds, are indeed positive feedbacks.

Water takes longer to heat up and cool down than does the air or land, so ocean warming is considered to be a better indicator of global warming than measurements of global atmospheric temperatures at the Earth's surface.

What the land temperature measurement does is disconnect partially from the thermal capacitance of the ocean and perhaps provide some distance from the noisiness of the oceans pseudo-cyclic oscillations.

For the estimation of the total ocean heat content (OHC) a lesser precision would probably be almost as good, because errors of individual measurements always cancel to a large extent as long as the floats do not have common systematic errors.

Ed, Did Callendar ever publicly resolve his doubts that were expressed in his 1957 Tellus paper, specifically regarding the 14C measurements and southern - ocean measurements of ~ 205ppm as measured by Muntz?

As an example sampling the Southern oceans must happen in essentially same areas and using methods with errors that don't move in either direction systematically, but as long as there are no such systematic trends the results are not particularly sensitive to errors of individual measurements.

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.

Yet we know the land around then Arctic is warming faster than the global average so it seems unreasonable to suggest that the ocean isn't, Satellite temperature measurements up to 82.5 N support this as does the decline of Arctic sea ice here, here & here.

So do measurements of ocean temperatures, which show that warmer temperatures are spreading into the deep abyss.

We don't know if the oceans have warmed below 2000 metres though — we have don't have the proper measurements — but if they have done, they could explain for the total increase in atmospheric CO2.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

The U-boats would all have used the same temperature, manifold measurements, and would have had a greater coverage of the oceans than did the allied convoys.

Helen Cleugh, science director at CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, says measurements do show that the rate at which global mean surface temperature has warmed in the past decade is less than the previous decade.

The very small change in ocean water temperatures since sea ice measurements began in 1979 does not match with gains (or losses) in any season, not from Sept (Arctic sea ice minimum) over through winter to March - April sea ice maximums.

There are many million measurements done over a lot of repeated tracks in all oceans.

Measurement is vital as we unravel the puzzle of warming, and the patterns of ocean, atmosphere and external influence that we don't yet understand.

As a result the most those papers can do is attempt to quantify the effects on measurements such as model TCR and model trends using air temperatures for land and ocean and comparisons with the observed using blended temperatures.

In truth, even if Christmas does bring warmth, it won't matter a whit, and not because the true measurements — based on comprehensive satellite readings rather than from a scattering of thermometers on land and ocean buoys — show 2014 to be nowhere near setting records.

While it is true that we do not have the measurements to show what was happening in the ocean during this time, for instance, we have good reason to believe that natural internal variability played a role.

He doesn't need the complete data to affirm his presupposed beliefs, just as he doesn't need experimental evidence or physical measurements or real - world observations to affirm his belief that humans are heating up the oceans with their CO2 emissions.

Another thing we don't see skeptics taking on is the energy imbalance being positive (ocean heat content measurements show this) which indicates that we are below the equilibrium temperature even after all this warming.

But I imagine we didn't have accurate ocean heat content measurements then.

But that does not change the observed fact that the fraction remaining in the atmosphere has decreased (by around 1 % - point per decade since Mauna Loa measurements started — from around 55 % to around 50 % (even though the ocean temperature increased marginally over this period).

Measurements show that the ocean is not doing that (the depths are cooler and always have been), and the land has been warming faster anyway since 1980 which is a fingerprint of an external forcing increase.

If it is from space, it's an albedo measurement and the recovery has to do with a reduction of cloud cover to let more energy in to restore the balance, but if that's true, then the mechanism is not clear because the signal to restore is not evident in the ocean temps, at least globally.