Sentences with phrase «why ocean heat»

The only reason why ocean heat uptake does have an impact is the fact that it is highly concentrated at the surface, where the warming is therefore noticeable (see Fig. 1).

Can anyone explain why ocean heat content has not increased since 2003?

If you aren't familiar with 2LoT and don't really understand why ocean heat, once diluted, can't undilute you may find the following trite expression useful: You can't unbake a cake.

Not exact matches

And many exchanges were heated because, despite 150 years of research on the biology of evolution, scientists still disagree about how and why multicellular creatures and plants emerged from ancient oceans that teemed with robust and self - reliant single - celled entities.

Oceanographers may have solved one of the biggest sea mysteries in years: why the upper ocean didn't warm between 2003 and 2010, even as heat - trapping greenhouse gases accumulated in the air above.

Why the ocean decided to absorb heat from 1998 2.

Well if the meme is now that mans contribution to the greenhouse effect is that we are now and will in the future, cause increased energy input into the oceans which is being distributed there rather than immediately coming out to heat the troposphere, why should we be concerned?

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.

Why it is expected that this miniscule heat speculated as being distributed across the entire ocean volume, would suddenly give up it's heat, thereby reappearing in the global surface record.

Better information about ocean heat content is also available to help there, but this is still a work in progress and is a great example of why it is harder to attribute changes over small time periods.

2) «The ocean too has been heating and cooling for billions of years, so again, why do we need a theory to explain why it's heating now (assuming it actually is)?»

The ocean too has been heating and cooling for billions of years, so again, why do we need a theory to explain why it's heating now (assuming it actually is)?

I also don't understand why the authors didn't separate out SST's and apply their statistical method to that dataset as well as to their complete ocean heat dataset.

See this Real Climate post: Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean.

A good explanation of the details is provided here: Koll & Abbot (2013)-- Why Tropical Sea Surface Temperature is Insensitive to Ocean Heat Transport Changes.

If the surface layer of the ocean is not quickly exchanging energy with the troposphere, which it can do easily and quickly but retaining the energy, why is it not heating up far more rapidly, If you are saying it is getting rid of it to the deep oceans, how precisely is it doing this so quickly?

You may now understand why global temperature, i.e. ocean heat content, shows such a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years — as shown in the ice core records.

And another question, why is the hiatus period during the 1960s not reflected in a larger heat storage in the deep ocean?

The storm will be encountering that exceptional ocean heat as it travels northward along the US coastline, and that is part of why it has a very good chance of becoming the most intense nor» easter we've yet observed.

A short while ago I published an article attempting to explain why the so called atmospheric greenhouse effect was insignificant as a planetary heat store in comparison to the oceans.

That and its large heat capacity explains why the ocean holds much of the earth's transient climate sensitivity.

Why would you look for a direct correlation there unless you are too dumb to know most of the heat is stored in the oceans, over 90 % in fact.

Regarding the 1st paragraph of your reply, I don't see why re-distributing heat by the oceans / atmosphere would change the so - called «average» temperature of the planet.

Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..

The resulting changes in ocean currents are part of the reason why more heat has gone deeper.

(As discussed here, the ACC barrier to ocean heat transport is a major reason why Antarctic sea ice has currently increased in contrast to decreasing Arctic sea ice.)

The same mechanism explains why at the end of ice ages deep southern ocean heating / currents start 2000 years before any atmospheric CO2 rise.

The ocean heat uptake comes into play only when one is trying to explain why the structure of the warming in models changes in time — that is, why the high latitude warming is delayed.

The question of «why the heat has to transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean» is because that is PRECISELY what the climastrologists claim is happening.

And why on earth should heat have to transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean.

Two reasons why this should be so in the real world are that, first, the Southern Hemisphere subtropical gyres are situated mostly in the Southern Ocean and South Atlantic, and second, that some of the heat coming into the Pacific Ocean basin doesn't actually stay there.

All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality - sunlight blocking soot, solar activity changes, and heat absorbed by oceans.

That is why I said you choice of sink was wrong, it is not the oceans it is the poles meaning you have to consider internal heat transfer in the thermal reservoir.

Why is deep ocean heat content increasing as well?

This is why you can pretty much ignore conductive heating of the atmosphere from the ocean.

I've long wondered why the ocean is warming at about the same rate as the atmosphere but has more than 1000x the heat storage capacity.

Which is why you can't understand how visible light from the Sun heats the oceans because you know that water is a transparent medium for visible..

Arctic Ocean shipping routes «to open for months» Heating up the Games: Why the British Isles could be the only viable Olympic hosts.

The ocean heat content of the N Atlantic actually hit it's maximum about 2007 so why didn't you start your graph in 2007?

If Arctic Sea ice recovers, ocean heat content declines, and near surface temperatures decline over a 10 year period... why then we might actually have something really worth getting excited about.

Do you wonder why you were handed the talking point «The heat is there, it's decided to hide in the ocean depths?»

One example I like was a relatively recent explanation of why the Earth was warming and why the temperatures in winter were lower than average; the reason was apparently that an ocean warmer than the atmosphere above was taking heat out of the atmosphere resulting in cooler winter temperatures.

Climatereason, Isn't a pity you did not ask this IPCC person why they knew that there was extra heat at the bottom of the oceans!

If you think they do, then you should explain why they are a better proxy than ocean heat content, and over what timeframe you think they are a better proxy.

277 For more on why open ocean occurs occasionally in Arctic summers, sometimes even at the pole itself, see http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPOpenWater.html. There is an enormous heat flux through them, as the difference between surface and air temperature is 30 °C.

This is one reason why many observers have suggested that multidecadal changes in ocean heat content may prove to be a more reliable metric than TOA energy imbalances, although the OHC measurements are themselves subject to methodological problems that preclude reliable interpretation over short timescales.

Then about three years ago, those same scientists, using those same data sets, admitted there was a pause, and spent their energy explaining why it didn't matter (ocean heat content being a better proxy was the most popular).

Those claims have resonated; two years ago, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change felt the need to explain why the Earth was not heating up as expected, listing such reasons as volcanic eruptions, reduced solar radiation and the oceans absorbing more heat.

There was an article about 1 - 2 years ago where two NOAA researchers were noting that it was not well understood why the intermediate levels of the ocean did not heat up.

So why do we only ever hear about the heat retaining properties of the atmosphere when the true cause of the Earth having the atmospheric temperature it has is not the atmosphere at all but the oceans?