Sentences with phrase «of ocean heat content data»

For more information, including a discussion of the natural warming of ocean heat content data, refer to my illustrated essay «The Manmade Global Warming Challenge» [42 MB].

This morning I found two emails in my inbox about an alarmist blog post that claims Big Jump in Ocean Warming, in response to the NODC's recent quarterly update of their Ocean Heat Content data.

Why the warming of the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific is dependent on the 1973 - 76 and 1995/96 La Niña events, and without those La Niñas the ocean heat content for tropical Pacific would cool.

Not exact matches

Figure 3 is the comparison of the upper level (top 700m) ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC and PMEL (Lyman et al (2010), doi).

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.

However, the large - scale nature of heat content variability, the similarity of the Levitus et al. (2005a) and the Ishii et al. (2006) analyses and new results showing a decrease in the global heat content in a period with much better data coverage (Lyman et al., 2006), gives confidence that there is substantial inter-decadal variability in global ocean heat content.

To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres.

Another figure worth updating is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC.

We present new estimates of the variability of ocean heat content based on: a) additional data that extends the record to more recent years; b) additional historical data for earlier years.

A total of 2.3 million salinity profiles were used in this analysis, about one - third of the amount of data used in the ocean heat content estimates in Section 5.2.2.

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.

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.

Alternatively, more direct observations of that radiative imbalance would be nice, or better theoretical and observational understanding of the water vapor and cloud feedbacks, or more paleoclimate data which can give us constraints on historical feedbacks, but my guess is that ocean heat content measurements would be the best near term bet for improving our understanding of this issue.

Remember too that ocean heat content increases were a predicted consequence of GHG - driven warming well before the ocean data was clear enough to demonstrate it.

The next figure is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC.

The objective of our study was to quantify the consistency of near - global and regional integrals of ocean heat content and steric sea level (from in situ temperature and salinity data), total sea level (from satellite altimeter data) and ocean mass (from satellite gravimetry data) from an Argo perspective.

Trenberth et al. suggest that even the choice of a different data set of ocean heat content would have increased the climate sensitivity estimate of Otto et al. by 0.5 degrees.

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

Sorry, I was comparing heat content (not SST, neither SAT) of different parts of the oceans down to 300 m depth (where most of the variation is visible), based on the data of Levitus e.a. which can be downloaded from the NOAA web site.

This makes perfect sense since there is little to no evidence of an anthropogenic global warming effect on global Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data.

Which implies that since the late» 40's - early» 50's we have had a data collection system deployed capable of measuring and tracking the annual TEMPERATURE of the top 2000 meters of the oceans of the world (necessary to calculate its heat content)-- all of them — with a precision and accuracy in the millidegree range.

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.

The RF time series are linked to the observations of ocean heat content and temperature change through an energy balance model and a stochastic model, using a Bayesian approach to estimate the ECS from the data.

We asked you to support your claim that the resolution of the oceanic temperature data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content, which you have yet to provide.

You made a specific claim, that the resolution of the data is not sufficient to make a determination of a trend in ocean heat content.

This is at least ten additional years compared to the majority of previously published studies that have used the instrumental record in attempts to constrain the ECS.We show that the additional 10 years of data, and especially 10 years of additional ocean heat content data, have significantly narrowed the probability density function of the ECS.

I don't know about all of you, but I do find that the uncertainty around e.g. the various issues related to ocean heat content or issues regarding connecting the Argo float network to other data networks is SO much better covered in Judith's bizarre and uniquely repetitive mischaracterizations of other scientists» comments, than by the published science and its critical review.

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. (20data 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. (20Data 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).

Temperatures measured by the ARGO floats and the XBTs before them are rising in the raw data, and the ocean heat content (OHC) is simply observed temperature change scaled by the thermal mass of the ocean layer in question - not some kind of complex model.

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.

Chen and Tung (2014) analyse the ocean heat content data maintained by a Japanese research group, Ishii et al (2005), and make a number of statements about the cause of multi-decadal fluctuations in ocean heat mixing rates.

However, in evaluating the ocean heat content data and scientific literature, Curry made a number of mistakes.

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...

Evidence of warming from ocean heat content measurements comes from a data set that is not mature and interpretation of this warming is confounded by the long time scales of circulation and heat transfer in the ocean.

Ocean heat content each year since 1993 compared to the 1993 - 2013 average (dashed line) from a variety of data sources.

Come back and talk about ocean heat content when you have, say, three decades of reliable ARGO data, OK?

When the first analyses of Ocean Heat Content calculated from old temperature data from the oceans where first published in the early 2000's, they were described as the «Smoking Gun».

I've presented videos and gif animations to show the impacts of ENSO on ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data (with cautions about that dataset), CAMS - OPI precipitation data, NOAA's Trade Wind Index (5S - 5N, 135W - 180) anomaly data, RSS MSU TLT anomaly data, CLS (AVISO) Sea Level anomaly data, NCEP / DOE Reanalysis - 2 Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation Flux (dswrfsfc) anomaly data, Reynolds OI.v2 SST anomaly data and the NODC's ocean heat content data.

«A more accurate comparison of global ocean / land energy imbalances would be GISS (since they use Arctic data), and ocean heat content down to 2000 meters.»

The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.

Figure 8: Argo ocean heat content — source — climate4you — well worth multiple visits for a range of up to date data.

Compare the professionalism of NASA's scientists and programs with that of Spencer and Christy (who told Congress in 2013 that no warming had occurred in 15 years, contradicting his own data and laughably contradicting the trend in atmosphere + ocean heat content).

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

Althoug this period of overlapping ocean heat and ERBS data is from 1993 to 2003 — it shows how ocean heat content is constrained by the planetary energy budget as it must be.

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.

The way I see it, if you get various data points of ocean heat content, you then have to plot a trend to see how that is changing with the other changes in incoming and outgoing radiation and greenhouse gases andland use etc..

«Our results demonstrate how synergistic use of satellite TOA radiation observations and recently improved ocean heat content measurements, with appropriate error estimates, provide critical data for quantifying short - term and longer - term changes in the Earth's net TOA radiation imbalance.

What are the error bars in calculating the heat content of an entire ocean from the sparse, unreliable (pre-ARGO) temperature data available?

The method preferred by the GWPF report, and that which Lewis has used in his own papers, involves estimating climate sensitivity using a combination of recent instrumental temperature data (including ocean heat content data), less complex climate models, and statistics.

Because you are fitting to look for a trend * after * selecting the data that looks flat, the real 95 % confidence interval of the trend in temperature (or ocean heat content) over any of these intervals is much larger than what you are presumably calculating.