Sentences with phrase «warmer temps result»

The only argument I've seen along those lines is the one that claims that the vast majority of the CO2 humans are emitting is sequestered in soils, oceans, etc, or used by plants, but that «naturally» warmer temps result in the release of sequestered CO2.

Warmer temps result in faster fermentation whereas cooler temps will slow it down.

Not exact matches

Sometimes the resulting warm mixed liquid does not set up well until refrigerated, thereafter it was a stable solid or semi solid at room temp.

After checking the temperature with a different thermometer and getting the same result, we moved the dog to the table, warmed the dog with many blankets, and used hot water bottles next to her body to increase the temp.

The part I'm now failing to comprehend is 37 item 3: «Further warming results, but * eventually achieves a new equilibrium * at a new, higher quasi-stable mean temp».

That is, a warming planet (anthropogenic or otherwise) would result in less volatile temp patterns.

His position: • No evidence of increasing lake clarity as a result of secchi measurements since 1946 • The interplay of stratification and plankton productivity are not «straightforward» • Challenges O'Reilly's assumption on the correlation of wind and productivity - the highest production is on the end of the lake with the lowest winds • A strong caution using diatoms as the productivity proxy (it is one of two different lake modes) • No ability to link climate change to productivity changes • More productivity from river than allowed for in Nature Geopscience article • Externally derived nutrients control productivity for a quarter of the year • Strong indications of overfishing • No evidence of a climate and fishery production link • The current productivity of the lake is within the expected range • Doesn't challenge recent temp increase but cites temperature records do not show a temperature rise in the last century • Phytoplankton chlorophylla seems to have not materially changed from the 1970s to 1990s • Disputes O'Reilly's and Verbug's claims of increased warming and decreased productivity • Rejects Verburgs contention that changes in phytoplankton biomass (biovolume), in dissolved silica and in transparency support the idea of declining productivity.

We have had some warmers on here recently talking about a «doubling of CO2 ″ and the estimated temp increase resulting eg «only 0.5 or maybe 1.5 C».

Which conveniently ignores Science News» Oct. 5th article: Global warming hiatus tied to cooler temps in Pacific, which states «The recent pause in global warming has resulted from cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean, new simulations find.

With the Earth known as the «water planet» because of over 70 % of the globe covered by deep oceans, warmer temps directly result in more evaporation of the ocean water into the air - clouds.

After we pass 2C over preindustrial temps we risk passing tipping points where we don't know how much additional warming will result.

The thing to ask is how do they know that the tree ring growth from the past wasn't stunted as a result of warmer temps causing evapotranspiration.

4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures), clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked / /... 5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time, ended up with y = 0.0018 x -0.0314, with r2 = 0.96 At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish: I was at least 95 % sure (max) temperatures were falling 6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me y = -0.000049 × 2 + 0.004267 x — 0.056745 r2 = 0.995 That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball... 7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?)

I'd like to state at the outset that that I consider myself a luke warmer, have am convinced that the Hockey Stick has basically been proven to be an outright fraud, that Climategate shows much of current climate science to lack any credibility, and acknowledge that there does appear to have been a lot of tampering with surface temp record, always aimed at getting the same (warming) result.

Warmer air temperatures with ocean temperatures lagging would result in La Nina's having a relatively larger spread between water and air temps producing a stronger effect even with weak La Nina's.

I already mentioned Spain and Northern Ireland here as well: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok Put your results together with mine and we find: minimum temps have not been increasing in line with modern warming.

T - 5: S. Wofsy (Harvard) HIAPER Pole to Pole Observations (HIPPO) of climatically important gases and aerosols 10:35 - 10:55 T - 6: R. Muller (UC Berkeley) The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Land Results 10:55 - 11:15 T - 7: R. Rohde (Berkeley Temp Project) A new estimate of the Earth land surface temperature 11:15 - 11:35 T - 8: F. Singer (SEPP) Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997 real?

When you know that 1998 was largely a result of an el Nino event, the largest el Nino of the century (estimated to have added 0.2 C to the global annual temp for 1998), the warming trend over the entire 20 year series is clear.

Frankly, to me, his result is not surprising, given that the Atmospheric Temperature record (not including Ocean Temps at any depth) is a poor [edit] proxy for «global warming».