Sentences with phrase «of ohc»

I simply referred to the the thin cool - skin effect mentioned by Rob Painting in his article last week, in which he postulated that it inhibited loss of OHC to the atmosphere.

The math of OHC is covered my paper «The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat» https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

On being more specific about what seems contradictory about this piece and the Pielke / Trenberth / Willis (PTW) exchange, I suppose, as a non scientist, it seems to me that the conclusion at the end of PTW is that the measurements of OHC seem to be completely contradictory to model predictions, whereas this present RealClimate post has the opposite conclusion, namely, that measurements perfectly confirm the model predictions.

If folks want to make a contribution to understanding of OHC measurements and in particular if they want to formulate a useful and progressive critique of Lyman et al they're going to need to read and comprehend the entire document as well as reach a level of expertise equaling or exceeding that of Lyman and his coauthors.

They then found that you actually got very compatible answers if done with reasonable estimates of historical forcing and a sensible treatment of OHC.

So the story is about actual precision of OHC data as opposed to error bars claimed by experts.

OK what is the numeric estimate of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of C2 in terms of OHC?

«The same people who ostensibly couldn't get good readings out of ARGO prior to 2008 suddenly discovered a mistake that changed the polarity of OHC change?

I compltely agree with you about the use of OHC rather than TOA radiative imbalance data, and the lack of benchmark values for the forcing from a doubling of CO2.

It is very difficult to sort out the causes of OHC variability owing to the short time record.

A significant fraction of OHC rise below 700 meters can be accomplished through warmer river runoff from the continents.

Since the topic of the thread is Ocean Heat Content Uncertainties, in the context of OHC as a proxy for globalclimatewarmingchange, I would have thought it was obvious I was speaking of «close» in the sense of giving sufficiently precise and accurate measurements to determine the central issue in this debate.

But there are no estimations of how large a rise of OHC results from a doubling of CO2.

(btw I acknowledged too your view that accurate measurements of OHC are not (yet) practical).

To gain further insights into ocean heat sequestration, it is useful to look at the regional variations of OHC anomalies.

I can quite honestly think of no excuse for the use of OHC data in this context, when the net flux data should be available to the GISS researchers.

If heat were escaping faster to space, then there would be a slowdown in the total rate of OHC increase, and not just in the 0 - 700m layer.

So, 100 % of the OHC variation in the ARGO period (for the full 0m - 2000m layer) still is a reflection of the average TOA imbalance over that period (modulo the latent heat of fusion lost to melting part of the cryosphere and OHC variations below 2000m).

Then the lower temperature of the upper layer is the very reason why the TOA imbalance remains large and why the rate of increase of OHC also remains large as a direct result of that.

The pulse from the 0m - 700m layer to the 700m - 2000m layer, whatever its explanation, contributes nothing at all to the rate of OHC increase.

BBD, you have a jump in OHC roughly equal to halfof all of the OHC added since 1980 in one year and you don't find that the least bit mysterious?

I find the assumptions of OHC intriguing.

The rate of OHC rise is the imbalance, which is the amount by which the emission, basically surface temperature, lags the forcing change.

A) a better temperature record (C&W or berkeley) both of which will increase the numerator (that thing on the top) B) a better OHC record (see the recent paper on sea level which will effect their estimates of OHC (the denominator thing) C) revised forcing due to aerosols from small volcanos.

(not all Joules of OHC is equal!)

«Climate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS - 4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto... changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0 °C to 2.5 °C, for instance.

Positive forcing at seasonal to inter-annual scales leads to an average global surface temperature drop from La Nina influence but recharging of OHC (longer term gain), while reduced forcing allows El Nino conditions and temporary peaks in global average temperature, and OHC reduction (longer term loss).

But to counter your doubts, here's a graph of the OHC for the mid-to-high latitudes of the North Pacific.

This is why the ENSO process and other large heat flows independent of CO2 seem to be at least as important if not more important for the variability of OHC.

And here's a graph of the OHC for the mid-to-high latitudes of the South Pacific.

Nevertheless, Shaviv detects a signal of OHC flux that correlates with the solar cycle.

As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003.

So, we can expect a few years of rebuilding of OHC in the Arctic before the new summer sea ice low is set.

This then means that all of the OHC gain — close to 100 % — can be attributed to non-radiative forcing or ENSO in this case.

I have done a number of OHC calculations over the years and the numbers you quote are ridiculously large.

It is the north Atlantic which has gained lots of OHC and has had the most elevated SST which best matches the global trend since 1970.

Using the late 20th century solar activity / earth temp time series, we can estimate a relationship between solar activity and temperature change; using that and past records, we can infer / impute a time series of ohc values.

You're pretty smooth Anu; the Levitus 2009 paper sees «plenty of ocean warming»; I suggest you look at Fig S9 of that paper; and I note you haven't commented on the 2003 spike in OHC which must be a transition error and contributes 1/2 of all OHC over the whole data period.

Looking for internal sources of OHC is where your unicorns are.

The linear trend of OHC is 0.79 ± 0.03 × 1022 J year − 1 within the same period (Figure 2).

CH, they don't mention La Nina as the cause for loss of OHC.

Moreover the rate of change of OHC is the imbalance in effect.

(1) I would also like to know better the reliability and accuracy of the OHC estimates.

The «noise level,» that is, the amplitude of internal variability, approximated here by the standard deviation (σ) of the OHC time series after the linear trend is removed, amounts to 0.77 × 1022 J from 2004 to 2015 (Table 1).

Based on the slope of the OHC over the last several years, a value of 0.75 w / m ^ 2 is possible which would place it right between the two of them.

The rate of OHC uptake and solar are in the same order of magnitude, with an inertial lag, the deeper oceans would continue warming slowly while the upper layer flattens.

As a result of cherrypicking noisy short - term data, DK12 argued that the apparent slowing in the rate of OHC increase was a result of a «climate shift» in 2002.

When the rate of OHC decreases, more warming would be measured in the atmosphere, like the 1998 El Nino peak, followed by the lower 2005 El Nino peak, followed by the lower 2010 El Nino peak, which indicate a change in the rate of OH uptake.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

Ultimately our paper shows that all three of the main conclusions in DK12 are faulty: the rate of OHC increase has not slowed in recent years, there is no evidence for «climate shifts» in global heat content data, and the recent OHC data do not support the conclusion that the net climate feedback is negative or that climate sensitivity is low.