Sentences with phrase «global atmospheric temperatures as»

Global atmospheric temperatures as well as atmospheric CO2 have been gradually and erratically falling for significant portions of Earth's history, but not in unison.

Not exact matches

It is entirely likely that causes such as fluctuations in the sun's intensity and volcanic eruptions may have contributed to a change in the global atmospheric temperature.

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

Their findings, based on output from four global climate models of varying ocean and atmospheric resolution, indicate that ocean temperature in the U.S. Northeast Shelf is projected to warm twice as fast as previously projected and almost three times faster than the global average.

The bad news is that such record - breaking downpours, blizzards and sleet storms are likely to continue to get worse as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, causing global temperatures to continue to warm and making the atmosphere more and more humid.

I understand that global surface temperatures are not responding as rapidly as they should be when the atmospheric models are considered.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

The CDR potential and possible environmental side effects are estimated for various COA deployment scenarios, assuming olivine as the alkalinity source in ice ‐ free coastal waters (about 8.6 % of the global ocean's surface area), with dissolution rates being a function of grain size, ambient seawater temperature, and pH. Our results indicate that for a large ‐ enough olivine deployment of small ‐ enough grain sizes (10 µm), atmospheric CO2 could be reduced by more than 800 GtC by the year 2100.

First let's define the «equilibrium climate sensitivity» as the «equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration.

Despite your insistence otherwise, you evince at best a shallow understanding of basic principles of climate science (hint: while radiative forcing is known to be at least partially controlled by atmospheric CO2, no «natural», i.e. internal source of variability has been demonstrated that could drive a global temperature trend for half a century), as well as an inability to recognize genuine expertise.

As the authors point out, even if the whole story comes down to precipitation changes which favor ablation, the persistence of these conditions throughout the 20th century still might be an indirect effect of global warming, via the remote effect of sea surface temperature on atmospheric circulation.

I understand that global surface temperatures are not responding as rapidly as they should be when the atmospheric models are considered.

If the global atmospheric CO2 content continues to increase exponentially, as it will, and temperatures remain static, how many reports must pass before the IPCC reduce their confidence in AGW?

It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature.

If the global atmospheric CO2 content continues to increase exponentially, as it will, and temperatures remain static, how many decades must pass before the IPCC reduce their confidence in AGW?

We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels, global temperature rise is kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.

Yu Kosaka & Shang - Ping Xie, as published in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html): «Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual - mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty - first century1, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.»

It seems to me, in my lay understanding, that climate change is likely to be expressed as increased average global temperature plus increased mechanical energy in oceanic and atmospheric currents.

As that happens, the underlying global warming driver will be progressively loosing its energy sink, and not only will we see ocean rise, but a progressive escalation in the rate of atmospheric temperature rise as welAs that happens, the underlying global warming driver will be progressively loosing its energy sink, and not only will we see ocean rise, but a progressive escalation in the rate of atmospheric temperature rise as welas well.

Redistribution of heat (such as vertical transport between the surface and the deeper ocean) could cause some surface and atmospheric temperature change that causes some global average warming or cooling.

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.

The researchers found that reefs in the warmest part of the Pacific Ocean — holding some of the most diverse coral arrays on Earth — have not been adversely affected as global ocean and atmospheric temperatures have risen since 1980.

The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6 °C that happened during the end - Permian extinction as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 72 over 20 years and 25 over 100 years).

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

Interestingly, only during the Late Cambrian / Early Ordovician and Late Carboniferous were global temperatures as LOW as they are today... and with atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the Cambrian - Ordovician as high as 4400 ppm.

«Climate sensitivity» remains a subject of intense investigation, and what counts as hellish is a matter of judgment, but United Nations climate negotiators have settled on a goal to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million, which would cause the global mean temperature to peak no more than 3.6 °F above preindustrial levels.

It has a miscule effect and was used by realclimate as a get out of jail clause because they knew the oceans dominate atmospheric global temperatures.

The authors conclude that minimum temperatures should no longer be used as a proxy for global atmospheric warming.

Measuring the atmospheric temperature without standardising the pressure gives little information that would help to assess global energy of the atmosphere As far as I can make out, one Bar of pressure equates to 3 degrees C roughly, So the range of variation in either would significantly relate to the otheAs far as I can make out, one Bar of pressure equates to 3 degrees C roughly, So the range of variation in either would significantly relate to the otheas I can make out, one Bar of pressure equates to 3 degrees C roughly, So the range of variation in either would significantly relate to the other.

The global average temperature is already approximately 0.8 °C above its preindustrial level, and present atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases will contribute to further warming of 0.5 — 1 °C as equilibrium is re-established.

«Instead of the above definition of λ, the global climate sensitivity can also be expressed as the temperature change ΔTx2, following a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content.

You could argue to use 288 K as a global mean surface temperature which gives about 6.5 percent, or colder temperatures still, reflecting atmospheric temperatures where the RH remains fixed.

I can't believe I am saying this, as the media covergae of climate change is almost universally appalling BUT I think part of the problem is that we, as the scientific community allowed the message / meme to permeate that media that «warming» was purely an atmospheric temperature phenomena to be assessed solely by average global temperatures.

And as to his claim that there may be «places around the world where global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect,» he appears to be equally ignorant that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to raise the temperature of optimum plant photosynthesis beyond the predicted temperature values associated with global warming, effectively nullifying this worn out claim (Idso & Idso, 2011).

Nor does it seem a coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature.

-- Susan Solomon, Nature The Long Thaw is written for anyone who wishes to know what cutting - edge science tells us about the modern issue of global warming and its effects on the pathways of atmospheric chemistry, as well as global and regional temperatures, rainfall, sea level, Arctic sea - ice coverage, melting of the continental ice sheets, cyclonic storm frequency and intensity and ocean acidification.

Besides these thousands of thermometer readings from weather stations around the world, there are many other clear indicators of global warming such as rising ocean temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric humidity, and declining snow cover, glacier mass, and sea ice.

Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Indeed, for the impartial spectator, it is hard to figure out, how the Lambda, the Watts, the 3; 3.7 relation to temperature, the 1.6 Watts / sqm of total global RF (radiative forcing) for the time period (also labelled as total anthopogenic forcing) 1750 - 2000, the share of Watts / sqm for each atmospheric constituent, and global temperature intertwine and produce a senseful scientific meaning.

If one looks over the past half century one would expect to find that, as a result of the clearly measured increase in atmospheric CO2, the Global Temperature is warming.

The international agreements forming the IPCC and the UNFCCC were designed to prevent greenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere, and as those agreements were hammered out, two American scientists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed a method that uses data collected from weather satellites to produce science's first comprehensive measure of global atmospheric temperatures.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

Type 3 dynamic downscaling takes lateral boundary conditions from a global model prediction forced by specified real world surface boundary conditions, such as for seasonal weather predictions based on observed sea surface temperatures, but the initial observed atmospheric conditions in the global model are forgotten.

So how our environmental future plays out now is that as the poles melt, the ocean heats, and water surface area increases, atmospheric H2O skyrockets and some time later as the temperature passes through 4 deg C heading for 5 deg C global temperature rise, the ocean currents start to stall.

And we also know that the correlation between global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 is statistically not very robust, so that something else must also «be at work» to cause the gradual warming (or «slow thaw», as you've dubbed it).

Working with a total of 2,196 globally - distributed databases containing observations of NPP, as well as the five environmental variables thought to most impact NPP trends (precipitation, air temperature, leaf area index, fraction of photosynthetically active radiation, and atmospheric CO2 concentration), Li et al. analyzed the spatiotemporal patterns of global NPP over the past half century (1961 — 2010).

So the percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans, which «remains» in the atmosphere, is shrinking as atmospheric concentrations as well as global temperatures are rising.

[Equilibrium] climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), once the ocean has reached equilibrium, resulting from a doubling of the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentration, being the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same radiative forcing as the given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.

The global surface is set up as a grid with several dozen vertical layers to resolve the atmospheric temperature structure.