Sentences with phrase «if atmospheric heat»

If atmospheric heat transported from lower latitudes was the major driver, more warming would be expected at greater heights.

Not exact matches

The takeaway is that if humanity stopped cranking out greenhouse gases immediately, sea levels would still rise for centuries before the heat dissipates through Earth's atmosphere and into space, says study co-author Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist at MIT.

Under extreme pressure, black phosphorus is transformed into a simple cubic form, so the team wondered if the same could be done to GeSe and heated the abundant alpha - GeSe form of the compound to 1200 °C under 6 GPa of pressure or 60,000 times atmospheric pressure.

If we had launched the Triana / DSCOVR climate satellite ten years ago, instead of mothballing it, we'd probably have robust answers to the energy budget question, and we could get the ocean heat change by calculating the (total energy change)- (atmospheric warming).

Maybe some of them do, but if we are talking climate scientists doing atmospheric physics and claim that it supports the theory of a greenhouse without windowpanes heating the earth, I would say not a single one of them has a clue of either applicability and use.

If more heat is transferred to the oceans than is accounted for by the models, that «is a negative atmospheric feedback, at least on shorter time scales.»

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

Thus if the oceans are continuing to heat while atmospheric warming has reached some sort of plateau, it would be inaccurate to claim that the heat has somehow been transferred from the latter to the former, thus nullifying the hiatus.

If you were to calculate a change in atmospheric heat content, that would be closer to your suggestion, and while I don't think it would look much different, it is not the same metric.

I also usually try to include the change in the Relative Humidity, (if it can be found), in my graphs as humidity plays a part in the atmospheric heat content.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

For hurricanes, then, you'd want to ask what the sea surface temperature, subsurface ocean heat content, and atmospheric water vapor content would have been if, say, fossil fuel use had been eliminated 100 years ago, and atmospheric CO2 remained at about 300 ppm.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

But your papers claim of a «bias» in the surface temperature record * if * it is used as a linear predictor of atmospheric heat content only makes sense * if * indeed people had used it in that sense.

Starting with zero atmospheric LW absorption, adding any small amount cools the whole atmopshere towards a skin temperature and warms the surface — tending to produce a troposphere (the forcing at any level will be positive, and thus will be positive at the tropopause; it will increase downward toward the surface if the atmosphere were not already as cold as the skin temperature, thus resulting in atmospheric cooling toward the skin temperature; cooling within the troposphere will be balanced by convective heating from the surface at equilibrium, with that surface + troposphere layer responding to tropopause - level forcing.)

If La Nina / El Nino can affect global air temperatures in a period of a few years, than other changes in ocean currents (driven by AGW) can affect global atmospheric heat content in a few years.

So if there were, say, a decadal - scale 1 % -2 % reduction in cloud cover that allowed more SW radiation to penetrate into the ocean (as has been observed since the 1980s), do you think this would have an impact of greater magnitude on the heat in the oceans than a change of, say, +10 ppm (0.00001) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration?

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

If this heat were instantly trans - ferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).

there IS a need for a NET energy transfer FROM the atmosphere TO the ocean, if we are to accept the climastrologists» explanation for the «missing» atmospheric heat.

If the heat is hiding in the deep ocean it is not only unphysical, if true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anywaIf the heat is hiding in the deep ocean it is not only unphysical, if true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anywaif true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anyway.

If we continue emitting large amounts of CO2 while we work towards converting to 3/4 solar power and survive the heating that we inadvertently speed up by reflecting more heat into an atmosphere already overburdened with reflective - heat - capturing CO2, some day in the future when the atmospheric CO2 returns to its natural percentage of 0.0300 % instead of today's extremely high 0.03811 % the world will cool down to the levels that nature intended.

If scientists of the past had known that the temperature of every planet with a sufficient atmosphere rises along with atmospheric pressure, and always exceeds its predicted temperature, do you think they would have come up with a theory that attributed extra heating to the presence of certain trace gases that occupy less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere?

Since the extra heat, mainly in the the oceans is the equivalent of warming the atmophere by 42 °C, if this heat had been extracted from the atmosphere to warm the oceans we would have seen a drop in Air temperatures of a similar scale: ≈ 40 °C or so of atmospheric cooling.

I am very bad at the find - the - pea - in - the - shell game, otherwise known as explaining where the AGW heat is going if the global atmospheric temps are pausing.

If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).»

The latter moving towards a new input - output equilibrium where the balance is controlled by the atmospheric chemical mix, whereas just dumping heat directly isn't doing that (though if it were a hundred times more than now, one can imagine some territorial / atmospheric side - effects).

I'd have to see some sort of computational model based on good atmospheric convection physics that pops up with the good old DALR to the same old top of troposphere even if there is no actual loss of heat up there.

If the Ocean slowly cools with radiant heat loss to space via warmer Arctic waters and a discernible decrease in atmospheric temps the last 1.5 years since the Super El Nino of 2016, then there should be more atmospheric CO2 uptake by cooling oceans.

If the only way atmospheric gases could lose energy is by conductive contact with the night surface, tropospheric convective circulation would stall and our atmosphere would heat dramatically.

The basic point and the one relevant to climate change, is still relevant — oceans still have an enormous moderating effect on temperature over time (though if there is a huge increase or decrease in re radiated atmospheric heat it is going to then affect the oceans initially).

So, if for any reason the rate of heat flow from the oceans changes then that will quickly affect atmospheric temperatures.

That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture: So far humans have caused about 1 °C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming.

If the heat isn't there — no super typhoon will form, no matter how supportive the atmospheric conditions are.

To that you answer if the temperature ever starts to rise, due to say volcanic heat, or upwelling to water's surface, the heat is immediately removed by the power of evaporation as infrared - resonant gases chug heat straight up through the atmospheric mix to belch it out radiatively at higher altitude; while simultaneously dragging other, non-infrared resonant gases upward with them, to also dump THEIR heat radiatively, from a higher position than they would have, had the refrigerative cycle not taken place.

Almost all climatologists work within a narrow slice of the total climatology pie: solar variations, the oceans, atmospheric circulation, heat transfer, cloud formation, proxies for past variability, climate models,... but very few if any, have a synoptic view of the entire field.

But if ENSO and other variations bring cold water to the surface, reducing atmospheric heating, air temperatures will then drop.

-- It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if we imagine the surface never emits that energy in the first place, - energy that is stored in the surface and just below, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, ground, and air, — just to mention a few, then any surface temperature change would be completely reliant on variations in Solar irradiation and advection mainly by Water Vapor (WV) but also by other GHGs that have the ability to contain more heat than the rest of the atmospheric gases.

IAmDigitap says: «If there were MORE HEAT or MORE I.R. DISTORTION, then THE PEOPLE who CONSTRUCT and MAINTAIN the ASSEMBLIES which FLEX TELESCOPE MIRRORS to ADJUST for HEAT DISTORTION would have LONG AGO trotted out T.H.E.I.R. DOCUMENTATION that SURE ENOUGH: the ATMOSPHERIC DISTORTION was GROWING.»

If you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearIf you have good measurements of upper ocean and atmospheric temperatures, then if you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearif you had a good decade - long satellite record of the Earth's total radiative energy balance from space — say, if Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten yearif Triana has been launched to in the late 1990s — then you could use conservation of energy to calculate the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean over the past ten years.

My guess the temperature changes can't be measured there, the deep ocean takes hundreds of years if not a thousand to come to the surface where it can impact the atmosphere and even then the dissipated heat can't raise the atmospheric global temperature because of all the changing currents and winds again spread it out.

If we can increase atmospheric CO2 without rich nations suffering, say, killer heat waves, then it's more likely that we'll just continue burning all the coal'til it's gone.

If weather events like hurricanes are a function of heat gradients, not of heat content, then it follows that raising Tmin more than Tmax, via atmospheric CO2, will cause their formation rates and their magnitude to fall