Sentences with phrase «trend in ocean heat content»

Several estimates of the trend in ocean heat content have been made using the ARGO network of ocean floats, satellite observations of ocean altimetry (Levitus et al., 2000, 2001; Willis et al., 2003), and climate models (Barnett et al., 2001; Crowley et al., 2003).

Mr Briggs, I would love it if you would comment on the current kerfuffle between Tamino and Bob Tisdale over their attempts to find a trend in ocean heat content.

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

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.

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.

Furthermore, this claim fails to note the long - term trend in ocean heat content, which is inexorably upward.

This sounds good since the trend in ocean heat content would be very, very close to the trend for the whole system, but just try finding any sort of calculation of this metric on his site.

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

Not exact matches

Linear trends (1955 — 2003) of change in ocean heat content per unit surface area (W m — 2) for the 0 to 700 m layer, based on the work of Levitus et al. (2005a).

A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69 % of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Oocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World OceanOcean.

The time series shows an overall trend of increasing heat content in the World Ocean with interannual and inter-decadal variations superimposed on this trend.

The geographical distribution of the linear trend of 0 to 700 m heat content for 1955 to 2003 for the World Ocean is shown in Figure 5.2.

Even if ultimately there is real confidence in ocean heat content data — i.e. the trends exceed the differences in data handling — without understanding changes in reflected SW and emitted IR it remains impossible to understand the global energy dynamic.

To clarify my above comment, I was suggesting that the observed rise in ocean heat content would be substantial with or without the La Nina effect, representing primarily the persistence of a long term warming trend.

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.

Apparently, in the last decade or so, surface and lower troposphere temperature has risen more slowly than the long term trend, but ocean heat content to 2 km has risen faster than the previous two decades.

Linear trends (1955 — 2003) of change in ocean heat content per unit surface area (W m — 2) for the 0 to 700 m layer, based on the work of Levitus et al. (2005a).

The consistency between these two data sets gives confidence in the ocean temperature data set used for estimating depth - integrated heat content, and supports the trends in SST reported in Chapter 3.

The geographical distribution of the linear trend of 0 to 700 m heat content for 1955 to 2003 for the World Ocean is shown in Figure 5.2.

A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69 % of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Oocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World OceanOcean.

The time series shows an overall trend of increasing heat content in the World Ocean with interannual and inter-decadal variations superimposed on this trend.

The lack of a statistically significant warming trend in GMST does not mean that the planet isn't warming, firstly because GMST doesn't include the warming of the oceans (see many posts on ocean heat content) and secondly because a lack of a statistically significant warming trend doesn't mean that it isn't warming, just that it isn't warming at a sufficiently high rate to rule out the possibility of there being no warming over that period.

This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.

They are simply a first estimate.Where multiple analyses of the biases in other climatological variables have been produced, for example tropospheric temperatures and ocean heat content, the resulting spread in the estimates of key parameters such as the long - term trend has typically been signicantly larger than initial estimates of the uncertainty suggested.

For these reasons, Section 5.2 mainly assessed upper - ocean observations for long - term trends in heat content and salinity.

I'm inclined to think that Ocean Heat Content, trends in land ice and Sea levels are more appropriate indicators of global climate change than surface air temperatures, but that's another issue.

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.

I say the ocean heat content in the Atlantic is dropping, you show trend lines.

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).

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

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..

Hi Bart, Could I just point out that Ocean Heat Content, given that the oceans represent the largest thermal mass involved in the climate system by far, is the right metric to use as a bellweather for future surface temperature trends.

Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long - term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.

The latter continues a fairly steady upward trend while the surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content undergo a hiatus in warming after about 2004.

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..

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.

To say nothing of the warming trends also noticed in, for example: * ocean heat content * wasting glaciers * Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet mass loss * sea level rise due to all of the above * sea surface temperatures * borehole temperatures * troposphere warming (with stratosphere cooling) * Arctic sea ice reductions in volume and extent * permafrost thawing * ecosystem shifts involving plants, animals and insects

During the altimeter period the observed 0 - 700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) in the subpolar gyre mirrors the increased SSH by its dominantly positive trend.

In addition, multidecadal measurements of steric sea level rise (a rise due to thermal expansion of sea water), and of ocean heat content have also been consistent with the temperature trends.

Johnson et al. (2007) estimated that the deep ocean could add an additional 2 - 10 % to the upper ocean heat content trend, which is likely to grow in importance as the anthropogenic warming signal propagates to increasing depth with time.

Gavin, I think it would be worth adding to the post 1) the main reason why there was so much doubt about the Lyman et al results (the unphysical melt amounts for 2003 - 5), 2) the expected role of GRACE in obtaining a reliable result, 3) the fact that the ARGOs don't measure the deep oceans, and 4) that it's inappropriate to take the remaining ARGO data (shown in the Lyman et al correction to be essentially flat for the last two years) and draw any conclusions about ocean heat content trends for that period.

For example, additional evidence of a warming trend can be found in the dramatic decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice at its summer minimum (which occurs in September), decrease in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the global average upper ocean (upper 700 m or 2300 feet) heat content (shown relative to the 1955 — 2006 average), and in sea - level rise.

The spatial distribution of the 2006 — 2014 warming indicates that all of the heat content increase during that period is in the southern hemisphere ocean (60 ° S to 20 ° S), with no significant trend in the tropics (20 ° S to 20 ° N) or the northern hemisphere (20 ° N to 60 ° N).

These trends are also accompanied by rising sea levels and upper ocean heat content over similar multi-decadal time scales in the tropical Atlantic.

As for ocean heat content, Argo hasn't been in the water long enough to show a clear signal, and there have been problems with the data, including a significant correction (you do recall the correction to the UAH satellite record after years of insistence that their data showed the surface temp record trends were completely wrong?).

Record droughts in many areas of the world, the loss of arctic sea ice — what you see is an increasing trend that is superimposed on annual variablity (no bets on what happens next year, but the five - to - ten year average in global temperatures, sea surface temperatures, ocean heat content — those will increase — and ice sheet volumes, tropical glacier volumes, sea ice extent will decrease.

Figure 3.2: b) Observation - based estimates of annual five - year running mean global mean mid-depth (700 — 2000 m) ocean heat content in ZJ (Levitus et al., 2012) and the deep (2000 — 6000 m) global ocean heat content trend from 1992 — 2005 (Purkey and Johnson, 2010), both with one standard error uncertainties shaded (see legend).

While reading this piece, I discovered an interesting point from the «Corrected» global ocean heat content trend, the 11th picture in the page: