Re: superb! -and question about atmospheric estimates

Subject:

Comments:
: : : A clear and complete analysis - suber job! : : : Is it understood why the old estimates of ocean : : : heat flux, as a residual of radiation minus atmospheric : : : heat flux, have all been about a factor of two high : : : at 24N? (I realize this isn't your main subject, : : : but it's still curious, isn't it?) : : Hi Randy, : : Thanks for your comment. : : First, it is the uncertainty associated with the old : : satellite data analysis. : : Secondly and maybe more associated with your question, : : the bad coverage of atmospheric measurements : : over the interior ocean did not account for the : : vigorous of atmospheric heat transport (Trenberth and : : Soloman, 1994). The residual of the radiation and : : atmospheric heat flux is therefore larger than : : the accepted ocean heat transport across this latitude. : : Best Regards, : : Dongxiao : : Hello, : Another reason, I understand, for the over : estimate of the residual methods was the fact : that the estimates used to have to be made around : latitudinal circles. The estimates over land : are thought to be more inaccurate that those over : sea and so contamninated the results. Trenberth : and Solomon (1994) were the first ones to suggest : application the method masking out land. In Bryden : and Imakaki's recent contribution to the Ocean : Circulation and Climate volume, they point out : that the "most notable problem" with the residual : method as applied by Keith (1995) is that the : annual average surface heat flux over land is not : zero and displays large fluctuations O(100 W/m2). : Using ocean only, both Keith's and Trenberth and : Solomon's estimates of ocean heat transport are : consistent with direct estimates. The comparison : of methods given in Bryden and Imawaki really nice. : - Alison