I didn't read that actual NASA report but I have a question that perhaps someone can answer.
From the NASA press release, I learned the following:
1. While much of the slowing can be attributed to the warming of the upper oceans, not all of it can be attributed to it.
2. The hypothesis was that the remaining heat was in the deep oceans.
3. Since it is difficult to measure the temperature of the deep oceans, they inferred the temperature by determining how much the deep ocean would have to warm in order to explain the observed sea-level rise.
4. They measured the amount of ice melt and calculated the expansion of the upper ocean due to its temperature rise and found that the two of them together explained the rise in sea-level.
5. They then concluded that the deep ocean hasn't warmed, in conflict with the hypothesis.
My question has to do with step #4.
In particular, I'm wondering about the assumption that there was no net transfer of water from the oceans to the atmosphere. I don't know if it was assumed to be zero, assumed to have an insignificant impact on sea-level, or calculated somehow and incorporated (unstated) into their calculations.
Anyone know?
Robert Cohen Department of Physics East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 http://www.esu.edu/~bbq East Stroudsburg, PA 18301
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Ze'ev Wurman
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:33 AM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] carbon wars
"The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency on Monday."