Sentences with phrase «on ohc»

There are numerous papers about the shift in sea level pressure and it's impacts on sea surface temperature on the North Pacific, but I've never seen a paper about its impacts on OHC there.

Which is why it still seems to me that for GW to be a reasonable hypothesis, we first need a reasonable take on OHC.

Fundamentally, you wish to impose a prior distribution on OHC and infer posterior probabilities.

These did a real number on OHC, with the final cap to the LIA being Tambora and the famous» year without a summer».

Those perturbations have much lesser impact on OHC.

More SW held below; upward influence on OHC.

Re volcanoes... the modelled impact on OHC due to volcanic eruptions for the 1955 - 1998 period alone is -0.11 W / m2 (HadCM3).

In contrast, the observed data on OHC show that most (far more than half) of the warming must have been forced, and excludes more than a minor role for internal variability.

Here is the prime candidate for such external forcing: I would not assume that El Nino and La Nino are equal in their effect on OHC either, it could easily be that one may be more effective in the short term, and the other more effective in the long term.

«I would not assume that El Nino and La Nino are equal in their effect on OHC either..»

dalyp, why don't you challenge Lewis and Curry on their OHC assumption?

If and when you can provide data or references to document your claims, or if you were to point me to those data or references — data and references that would help illustrate and document my posts, (which are about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events on global SST and TLT anomalies, and about the discharge / recharge aspects of ENSO, and about the impacts of ENSO, NAO, NPI, AMO on OHC, not the PDO, not what initiates ENSO events, not millennial ocean cycles, etc.)-- I would be happy to include it.

But my posts on OHC deal with the timing of the sudden shifts and the factors that cause those shifts.

where Fco2 = forcing due to c02 doubling dT = delta temp from begining period to ending period dF = change in Forcing dO = change on OHC

We have pretty good current data on OHC, reasonably accurate data back to around 2003/2004.

If this is accepted as a reasonable looking proxy for ocean heat content which matches the instrumental OHC record pretty well, then no «lag» is needed to explain the solar effect on OHC and thus global surface temperature.

Conversely, La Nina would have the opposite effect on OHC relative to neutral conditions.

Any chance of doing a statistical significance versus years of data on the OHC, as you did on the «How Long» post for GISS data?

And just to be clear Trenberth and Hansen do not agree on OHC.

If the atmospheric «forcing» had a significant impact on OHC it would be more obvious now than in 1955.

If greenhouse gases were having an impact on the OHC to depths of 2000 meters, eadler, they would have to have had an impact on the upper 700meters.

Point 4 (on the OHC) misunderstands that MEA15 were trying to assess whether real world analyses give the right result.

This is of particular interest in relation to «effective climate sensitivity» estimates that rely heavily on OHC uptake data.

Georgia Aquarium's Senior Vice President of Animal Health, Research and Conservation, Dr. Gregory Bossart, sits on the board of the One Health Commission, and the Director of Research and Conservation, Dr. Alistair Dove, is on the OHC Council of Scientific Advisors.

Plus, OHV powerplants tend to be much easier to package because the cylinder heads on OHC engines — especially those with two camshafts per cylinder bank — take up a lot of room under the hood, Damico says.

Not exact matches

In complete contrast, on Bruno Vendiesse's stand, was a delectable 1927 Lombard AL3, an 1100cc twin ohc coupé by Duval.

These OHC engines are available on exchange for the following application:...

Despite the difficulties of calibration that makes an absolute radiative imbalance measurement impossible — the anomalies data contains essential information on climate variability that can be used to understand and close out the global energy budget — changes in which are largely OHC.

Today's uncertainty comes from evaluating feedbacks and tipping points such as how much longer the Ocean will keep sucking up heat and CO2 (OHC) or how fast non-linear developments will occur or for how long we can sustain civilisation based on conservative scenario assessments RCP8.5.

This is on the order of 3e19J, as compared to OHC decadal increase on the order of 0.5 e22J, both dwarfed by total absorbed insolation on the order of 1e27J.

Now anyone can see from the data that the ocean heat capacity (OHC) has been accumulating energy at a rate on the order of 0.5 to 1 W / m ^ 2.

I agree the OHC data are incompatible with a predominately internal contribution (although I'm sure Judith would argue those data are too uncertain, though I don't think anyone has argued OHC decreasing over the last half - century, at least not at the ocean basins / depths that communicate with the atmosphere on the relevant timescales).

The OHC thus only «reflects the current effects of airborne CO2 on the environment» when the climate is in equilibrium.

I'd have done OHC, but unfortunately, that data isn't on Woodfortrees.

Of course, we know TOA fluxes must continue to warm globally on a decadal basis because we have OHC data.

Even putting aside the OHC data and fingerprinting, there is absolutely no evidence in model simulations (or in prevailing reconstructions of the Holocene), that an unforced climate would exhibit half - century timescale global temperature swings of order ~ 1 C. I don't see a good theoretical reason why this should be the case, but since Judith lives on «planet observations» it should be a pause for thought.

-- Without forgetting a significant interannual variability in OHC increase... the average value, 10 - 15 years ago, was close to 8 ZJ per year, that is # 250 TW on average.

This permits us to apportion surface temperature change over long intervals on the basis of OHC change.

According to the graphs he presents on his blog - o - site, in his favorite Case III version 0 - 50m OHC has been dropping while Levitus shows it rising.

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

So while their conclusions may be valid: yes there is no evidence of a discrepancy, given their uncertainties, and yes there is no «statistically significant» decline in OHC rates of change, but the uncertainties are so large that neither dataset is useful to know what is really going on, and that is the key point.

The OHC has its own controls in the water cycle, the radiant impact is on the fringes of the moisture envelope.

No amount of change in Ocean Heat Content (OHC) by itself will have any effect on that.

On the other hand, OHC changes match pretty well with the imbalance.

The entire OHC content anomaly when converted from Joules back to temperature in the ocean is on the order of 0.09 C (I assume you can do the math and conversion, but if not let me know and I'll show my work).

All temperature indexes are troubled by noise, OHC is better in that respect, but temperature is what people observe, and temperature is what has direct influence on all life.

Gavin Schmidt says: «The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so).

Of course with OHC, the data are much more noisy and everyone agrees that one can only go so far in accounting for the year - on - year variations.

OHC varies on time scales from annual to millennial 1.6Wm - 2 is not an energy source but a response to energy flow.

The forcing on the atmosphere due to the increase in OHC would increase.