7 0 0 0 OA Accuracy of Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation Expected from Present Observational Data Sets
- 著者
- Masayoshi Ishii Yoshikazu Fukuda Shoji Hirahara Soichiro Yasui Toru Suzuki Kanako Sato
- 出版者
- Meteorological Society of Japan
- 雑誌
- SOLA (ISSN:13496476)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.13, pp.163-167, 2017 (Released:2017-09-14)
- 参考文献数
- 31
- 被引用文献数
- 102
The simplest global mapping method and dense data coverage for the global oceans by the latest observation network ensure an estimate of global ocean heat content (OHC) within a satisfactory uncertainty for the last 60 years. The observational database conditionally presented a level high enough for practical use for the global OHC estimation when applying bias corrections of expendable bathythermograph, assuming that the other severe observational biases are not included in the database. Uncertainties in annual global mean temperatures averaged vertically from the surface to 1,500 m are within 0.01 K for the period from 1955 onward, when only sampling errors are taken into account. Those in annual mean global OHC of an improved objective analysis for 0-1,500 m depth is 16ZJ on average throughout the period. Compared to previous studies, the new objective analysis provides a higher estimation of the global 0-1,500 m OHC trend for a longer period from 1955 to 2015, which is an increase of 350 ± 57ZJ with a 95% confidence interval.
言及状況
外部データベース (DOI)
Twitter (7 users, 13 posts, 18 favorites)
@dodders75 @AtomsksSanakan @hausfath @ncdave4life Considerable data, John
Pls check key early papers
Levitus et al Science 287:2225-2229 2000
Levitus et al Geophys Res Lett v32 L02604 2005
Ishii et al Monthly Weather Rev 131:51-73 2003
then see data reviews
https://t.co/N8XggURmCF
https://t.co/m6YHzfLkVz
@Lijing_Cheng Wow - insight into evolution of not just coverage, but technologies employed!
Is Figure 2a of Ishii et al SOLA 13:163-167 2017 still "current" with these figures of yours (to me it is a good plot combining depth and coverage)?
https://t.co/N8XggURmCF
@Willard1951 @FChecker76 @aanthanur @JafSupO @BulldogLoyalty @RushhourP @Kenneth72712993 @jimdtweet @Over400ppm @MarcCavallero @stevenmosher @aSinister @NikolovScience @Piers_Corbyn @fergy1999 @fcmfcs2019 @turpinator929 @tracemetalclean @jgorman2424 @MystickTheater @BubbasRanch @Hji45519156 @rln_nelson @DawnTJ90 @damagedonegr @joetheatheistp @johnreyman2 @ladyspat1 @priscian @ammocrypta @TWTThisIsNow @danylok @kuhn_reinhard @hertsgaard_mark @CalvinZod @FriendsOScience @DMDent @B_Bolshevik100 @caerbannog666 @badmoonrising11 @Hoireabard @Robin_Hagues @robhon_ @SpurglyD @_Zyniker_ @claude_roumain @Voight_Kampff_3 @JimFish56837379 @dianeclectica @Setophaga9 "now clearly agree based on Argo and other data"
Yep. Japan Meteorological Agency, Ishii et al.
https://t.co/VjvO0oEHyY https://t.co/apt72vhMCA
@jimdtweet @Turfin4u @Fauntleroy1934 @BubbasRanch @WeiZhangAtmos @HuntsonMark @Over400ppm @ReckedRik @RushhourP @Tangomitteckel @RustyAway @DigDougFTW @Narvuntien @Erbrew1 @TQMKA @riktheozfrog @StormSignalSA @Bananenrijperij @RoyPentland @FeynmanFreaky @Homer4K @DanCady @MikeDel21893959 @AlaMerQld @Barbarajdurkin @OutsiderSkyNews @HtServadac @NickAPalmer @RockyRex13 @DawnTJ90 @Dardedar @no2wind @insane_voice @minton_denis @Chrisdebois1 @cjtjgeol @novakglobal @justinetrudeu @PeterTimes @Pete48068744 @garner_forest @ElectricElecti1 @Niggledom @Osprey0 @NicolausBourba1 @rmack2x @BrianTu85458331 @Jamz129 @PaprikaLady @MedBennett Or 350 ± 57ZJ which is in good agreement.
https://t.co/VjvO0oEHyY
@ladyspat1 @Kenneth72712993 @DenglerJoachim @ClimatePoet @jgorman2424 @NicolausBourba2 @jimdtweet @BubbasRanch @KIVUNature @Voight_Kampff_3 @freddreise @KCTaz @robhon_ @stevenmosher @Setophaga9 @joedieseldodge @caerbannog666 @DawnTJ90 @FriendsOScience @Chrisdebois1 @Over400ppm @priscian @AlexHanss @mrpjtay @Gladfly1 @MichaelEPerrone @claude_roumain @TWTThisIsNow @EthonRaptor @NikolovScience @ron9gray @BobArmstrong @oakden_wolf @notGHGs @zwerfkat @TQMKA @serveBC @MLBinWA @No1Trump @eachus @Curmudgeon1836 @SantasTavern @SpurglyD @Dang83616 @DavidMichaelRi8 @ToneyBrooks @BArgentavis @HuygensWill @5_cambridge @SUFANbowserjr Why don't you show any evidence. You just make unfounded twitter claims.
"Accuracy of Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation Expected from Present Observational Data Sets"
https://t.co/VjvO0oEHyY
@PhilosophySeel @Narvuntien @BubbasRanch @FeynmanFreaky @cjtjgeol @TyotoRiffle @Jamz129 @DigDougFTW @Love_Love7Peace @TheDisproof @StormSignalSA @RoedermarkLib @PaprikaLady @RoyPentland @Tutkija5 @Fauntleroy1934 @TQMKA @ReckedRik @no2wind @Youcantbeserio6 @HishamSaid13 @PeZzy @MedBennett @ty_fried @SkyeManMc @DawnTJ90 @FeynmansMethod @BettySlughorn56 @Biggieol6 @EcoSenseNow @agentsinaction @Barbarajdurkin @Climatehope2 @drewman_drew @BridgetHolmstro @AJamesW2 @Over400ppm @JohnSmi50968113 @ShhSami @thinks_about_it @RijpeW @SlugBub @GavinKreijkes @austbondlover @poynton_j @GeraldKutney @mtnman0038 @documentavi @Richard25972121 Lying deniers with obfuscating cutouts again. Uncertainties are properly described in the paper:
https://t.co/VjvO0oEHyY
@PhilosophySeel @Narvuntien @BubbasRanch @FeynmanFreaky @cjtjgeol @TyotoRiffle @Jamz129 @DigDougFTW @Love_Love7Peace @TheDisproof @StormSignalSA @RoedermarkLib @PaprikaLady @RoyPentland @Tutkija5 @Fauntleroy1934 @TQMKA @ReckedRik @no2wind @Youcantbeserio6 @HishamSaid13 @PeZzy @MedBennett @ty_fried @SkyeManMc @DawnTJ90 @FeynmansMethod @BettySlughorn56 @Biggieol6 @EcoSenseNow @agentsinaction @Barbarajdurkin @Climatehope2 @drewman_drew @BridgetHolmstro @AJamesW2 @Over400ppm @JohnSmi50968113 @ShhSami @thinks_about_it @RijpeW @SlugBub @GavinKreijkes @austbondlover @poynton_j @GeraldKutney @mtnman0038 @documentavi @Richard25972121 "Compared to previous studies, the new objective analysis provides a higher estimation of the global 0−1,500 m OHC trend for a lon-ger period from 1955 to 2015, which is an increase of 350 ± 57ZJ with a 95% confidence interval."
https://t.co/VjvO0oEHyY https://t.co/HFi6Ev24bv
@erlhel @nytimes Hey Earling. You're missing the crisis. The earlier estimate https://t.co/IxHGSoFpk5 (pdf) of warming over the period 1955-2015 was 350 ZJ, or 0.14°C. Now it's 0.15°C. Don't know how you'll be able to sleep tonight.
@NikolovScience Yep. And the paper they rely on https://t.co/IxHGSoFpk5 (pdf) claims this new higher level of warming is 350 ZJ from 1955-2015 (70 years). That would translate into 0.14°C. Don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Accuracy of Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation Expected from Present Observational Data Sets
https://t.co/94XNghKl6T