Sentences with phrase «using ohc»

The problem the AGW community will have using OHC data is that the NODC OHC data (Levitus et al 2009) portrays the effects of natural variables (ENSO, SLP, AMO), not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

In this context, Marvel's choice of using OHC data rather than making direct use of the available net flux data from the model runs seems absurd.

Using the OHC slope rather than TOA radiative imbalance N seems bizarre, and scientifically indefensible.

In using OHC as a measure of climate sensitivity, we see that there has been no pause and the climate is very sensitive to changes in GH gas forcing.

So I looked further back to see if that kind of correlation was evident, using OHC as the pacemaker.

That confirms my opinion pronounced here a year or two ago, that we should use OHC as the measure of GW rate.

Given a free choice of GCMs, I would not choose to use OHC data from a model with a known ocean heat transport problem.

I can think of no other explanation for carrying out an efficacy study which uses OHC instead of net flux and which is based on a woefully inadequate definition of the benchmark data on the CO2 cases.

I think that it is interesting that warmists never use OHC as a measure of climate sensitivity.

Not exact matches

Using the 1.6 - liter OHC inline four rated at 70 hp, this model continued in production until 1994, and was the last Chevette version built in Brazil, where it was replaced by the coupe utility version of Chevrolet Corsa.

The CA was replaced by the CF, a completely unrelated vehicle using new overhead camshaft (OHC) engines, which was to have a much harder time proving itself thanks to the Ford Transit.

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.

You may claim my comments are veering «off topic», but I am supporting the use of OHC as a metric and showing how climate models get it wrong.

He plucks out of context a sentence about OHC while ignoring the central argument we are making about that indicator — which is that if most of the heat is going into the oceans and we now have substantially better ways to measure OHC then why not use that measure.

For BNO (S) alone in its last quarter cycle 2000 - 14 (for which we have the best data OHC) the ΔOHC 0 - 2000m record is 4x larger and of opposite sign (contradicting the assumption of BNO = AGW by suggesting AGW is 5x bigger in magnitude than BNO (S) for this period if BNO (S) did exist using 0 - 2000m ocean storage).

The depths of 0 - 3000 meters used to be presented in long - term OHC papers along with other depths, but researchers have been presenting only 0 - 700 meters in the long - term reconstructions recently.

TOA = 0.62 [d (OHC) / dt] I used this to check my math and found the following average forcing values to match my calculations.

Otherwise the OHC compu - tation depends on the temperature scale used.

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.

The actual forcing might be 1.2 of which OHC might have used up 0.3, according to Levitus, leaving 0.9 to act as forcing.

@WHT: Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.

Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.

Go ahead and show us on any of the following: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Antarctic Sea Ice Extent OHC Sea level Rise Rate Global Temperature Drought Incidence Hurricane Activity Tornado Activity Glacial Melting Like my mother use to tell me «Do something useful»

This may be me advertising my ignorance but if the OHC is of interest as against the SST why do we use a parameter of «global temperature» which is an amalgam of SST and air temperature over land rather than a total heat content or a temperature normalised say for mass or thermal density (normalise to the properties of water say)?

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 vaUsing 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 vausing that and past records, we can infer / impute a time series of ohc values.

W&H can be approximated by OHC — which we don't yet have a good enough handle on but can in principle be used to close out the LHS terms using differences and not absolutes.

Based on CERES - EBAF data calibrated to Argo OHC up to July the 2008 - 2017 average TOA imbalance is going to be about 0.9 W / m2, Berkeley Earth Land + Ocean global average about 1.01 K difference from 1860 - 1879, forcing updated using NOAA AGGI to about 2.3 W / m2.

I can not comment on the AOGCMs used for ARx reports as they never seem to publish their OHC data, only their SSTs.

He is probably so upset that Judy didn't use the latest OHC numbers that he couldn't stand it here any longer.

You can also rested assured that, back in September, when I first posted the NODC OHC data and noted the anomalous 1995/96 rise in Tropical Pacific OHC, I used another dataset that reaches well below the 700 meter level to verify it.

«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.

The delta temperature plus heat capacity of seawater is then used to calculate OHC.

They use the same methods and get something approaching 1 W / m2 heating especially in later years where surface warming stopped, but this can be accounted for by the OHC change (missing heat and all that).

The 0 - 2000 meter OHC underestimates total TOA imbalance because, of course, there is additional warming at greater depths, heat used to melt ice, and heat used to warm land and atmosphere.

At some point I guess we may measure it so accurately that the difference betwen OHC and AHC (from global and vertical temps profile) will be used as a measure of ENSO.

I remember Roger Sr.'s arguments in favour of using ocean heat content (OHC), rather than atmospheric temperatures.

And since we know the pre Argo OHC data is poor to nonexistant (xbt calibration being but one example), it means the attribution problem is likely insoluble using observational means until many more ARGO decades have passed, at least one more full stadium wave.

Denier sites use the NODC OHC data as it shows a mini-trend of cooling.

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.

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.

But since the heat from AGW can be used up in melting ice just as much as it can increase OHC, the argument is invalid.