Measured, of course.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
And I find it funny how denialists talk about missing heat going into the oceans as if as if someone someone were just being flippant, rather than having evidence. But, if they cared about evidence, they wouldn't be denialists.
Did you ever consider that there could be a reason to adjust the data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...
Once, James Hansen got into deep plant food for using unadjusted data.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y...
Raisin Caine
< That missing heat always annoys me. It is not missing. Heat is not some nymph that just decides to hide from you.>
As I said above, instrumentation in the oceans are why people say that the heat is going there. Check my above link.
Oceanic heat content (OHC) is the heat stored in the ocean. Oceanography and climatology are the science branches which study ocean heat content. The changes in the ocean heat play an important role in sea level rise, because of thermal expansion. It is with high confidence that Ocean warming accounts for 90% of the energy accumulation from global warming between 1971 and 2010
The thing is, in a sense, all of our temperature measurements are modeled, calculated, estimated, and/or by proxy. Even if you measure the temperature of something by sticking a thermometer in it, what you are doing is estimating the temperature by measuring the reaction of a volume of liquid to said temperature (assuming it's an alcohol or mercury thermometer).
And heat content is, of course, even less direct. You figure out the temperature, the mass, and the specific heat, and from that, you can calculate the heat content.
But if I said "Little Bobby's got a fever of 103", would you dismiss that result because I got it by looking at an alcohol thermometer proxy, or would you take the boy to the doctor?
Mostly, it is modeled with smoothing. They only have 3000 measurement devices to cover the entirety of the oceans NOW. The number of measurement devices they had 40 years ago, was most certainly less.
Two thumbs downs... Interesting. I would be curious to see if those that gave the thumbs down could provide evidence that the heat content was not calculated using a modeling program, because I can certainly provide evidence that it was.
JimZ,
Yeah. That missing heat always annoys me. It is not missing. Heat is not some nymph that just decides to hide from you. Your models are inaccurate and not accounting for everything. You need to fix your models and test those models against future data and in 20 years, you can tell me your models work for periods of 20 years. That is the way the scientific method works. Not this "here is why the model messed up, so the models are accurate". That is pure laziness.
OM,
You should listen to linlyons. My friend took his picture and his wife's picture, and combined them to see what their children would look like. The resultant picture was hideous. So were his babies.
I am joking. This mash together, make an assumption here and an assumption there, a correction here and a correction there, is great for coming up with a model, but it doesn't tell you crap about your model's accuracy.
This is the "re-analysis" paper by Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth, and Erland K?llén:
"Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content". The one that concluded that the missing heat had gone into the oceans.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/we...
They did their re-analysis by using data and a model. Using a model in the re-analysis convinced them that the model was right after all. The data when re-processed using the model now agreed with the model. Colour me not entirely convinced.
Many of the big numbers in climate science are based on corrections and interpolations even extrapolations.
Com-on Mike, you know better than that.
Ocean temperature is measured via satellite.
And research ships take measurements of temperatures at varying depths.
Combining the two provides a pretty accurate measurement of ocean heat content.
https://www.google.com/#q=satellite+meas...
Ships at sea always send in Met reports but that was when we had ships at sea. Same with power stations, wind speed and direction and barometer.
It is computed from temperature measurements, the basic equation is
Heat content? I would imagine that the heat content would have to be calculated as opposed to being directly observed. I am not certain how heat content could be measured in any other way. Perhaps others here would know better than this?
Take those TD with a grain of salt Raisin. Sometimes it means you made a good point but I at least tried to equalize them. I know no one can tell since I am sitting here behind my monitor but I always roll my eyes when they start bringing up the missing heat and how it was found, Yippie. I think finding the missing heat would be like finding a piece of hay in a hay stack. It is pretty easy if you look for it and really want to prove it is there.
Or is it calculated? Estimated? Analyzed? Homogenized? Hypothesized? Super-sized?
It is conveniently devoid of any data going back at all. If you though going to three decimal places was silly in the surface temperature record, they have to go to four decimal places when they talk about temperature rises in the oceans.
No we cant actually accurately measure it. and if we could what would it prove, as I am sure heat in the oceans has been cycling up and down for centuries, so we wouldn't know if what is happening is normal or not.
Well try here for info
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/mod...
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
We don't have enough instrumentation to get any idea what it is. Once we would get that then it would take a decade or so to see any delta. You forgot one probability. Fantasized!
