Sentences with phrase «when ocean cycle»

When ocean cycle shifts, globe is likely to warm up When climate models were run that included the stronger winds, they were able to reproduce the slowdown in surface temperatures.

When the ocean cycles change the rate at which they release energy to the air then the effective radiating height will change too.

Not exact matches

When the climate warmed in the late 1800s, it triggered the retreat phase of the tidewater glacier cycle as warm ocean water melted the ice.

When these worms began to mix up the ocean floor's sediments (a process known as bioturbation), their activity came to significantly influence the ocean's phosphorus cycle and as a result, the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere.

«In order to predict how ecosystems will react when you heat up the planet or acidify the ocean, we first need to understand the mechanisms of everyday carbon cycling — who's involved and how are they doing it?»

Due to a combination of the warm phase of the solar cycle and an overdue switch to El Niño - when the ocean gives up a lot of heat to the atmosphere, near - future warming is expected.

The earth absorbs more sunlight during the southern hemisphere summer when the darker (all that ocean) southern hemisphere is pointed more towards the sun This seasonal cycle may be large enough to overwhwlm the warming from CO2 etc for a year or so, thus on a seasonal scale the rise may not be monotonic.

What happens to global temperature trends when you factor in the potentially confounding influence of ocean warming and cooling cycles?

And now I'm supposed to believe you when you say «the non-linearity essentially results from the ocean cycles,» and «there must be another significant factor»?

[Response: That is a positive feedback that acted during ice age cycles: when it got warmer at the end of an ice age, this led to release of stored CO2 from the deep ocean, thus raising atmospheric CO2 levels.

When we say «positive» and «negative» feedbacks in the sense of radiation (so I'm not talking about carbon - cycle responses such as methane release from the oceans or such) we're referring to temperature - sensitive variables which themselves affect the radiation budget of the planet.

SO just HOW can we justify that that the outflow in the computer MUST be less than inflow for the 250 years of the computer run, when clearly the daily temperature cycle will reestablish the equilibrium (at least for the atmosphere & ground — not sure about deep ocean equilibrium, BUT I also know that there is MUCH MUCH MORE energy stored in the Land (eg solid iron core of earth) than in the ocean & the GCMs do NOT address this either).

Unfortunately, alarmists prevent this when they take evangelical views, words and actions regarding this particular issue often citing their own set of «facts» which five minutes study can debunk, geological history can debunk, solar cycles can debunk, temperature history can debunk, «ocean conveyer» history can debunk, etc... the cry «We have ten years or were all going to die» (or equivalent) is not helpful and simply creates a mob - mentality based on fear.

When the oceans and vegetation release that Carbon back to the cycle, it usually gets converted back to CO2.

I see no scientific grounds for a speculation that increasing CO2 will have a significant effect on the temperature of Earth when we have the far more important, long lasting and frankly overwhelming contribution of the oceans to consider together with a variable speed for the water cycle.

Just as there is no «33 °C warming by greenhouse gases from the minus 18 °C it would be without them» — when the real blanket which slows heat loss is reinstated — the heavy voluminous fluid ocean atmosphere of real gas, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, and when the Water Cycle is reinstated.

When we do, no matter how good the climate model is it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our ability to predict the things that affect climate — solar activity, ocean cycles, etc — and it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our understanding of how things that affect climate actually work — solar activity, Earth orbital changes, etc..

1 When designing the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM), instead of starting from scratch, the modeling groups took the atmosphere model (called CAM) from the climate model called CESM, an ocean model originating from the MICOM model and the carbon cycle model HAMOCC from Germany.

When solar activity falls, energy comes out of the ocean, not just over the period of the decline of a single 11 year solar cycle, but if the Sun stays low in activity terms, for many years.

During that same period, average annual rainfall in New South Wales declined by 3.6 inches (92 millimeters).3 Scientists think the decline in autumn rainfall in southeast Australia since the late 1950s may be partly due to increases in heat - trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.3, 14 Major bushfires over southeast Australia are linked to the positive phase of an ocean cycle called the «Indian Ocean Dipole» — when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average in the western Indian Ocean, likely in response to global warming.1ocean cycle called the «Indian Ocean Dipole» — when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average in the western Indian Ocean, likely in response to global warming.1Ocean Dipole» — when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average in the western Indian Ocean, likely in response to global warming.1Ocean, likely in response to global warming.15, 16

And it is known that the southern polar regions «see - saws» with the northern — so when the north polar is on the up cycle — the south polar in on a downer (Bob Tisdale's graph of the southern ocean SSTs shows this clearly for the «global warming» period of 1980 - 2005 — and the Peninsula Region just catches a flow - in from warmer seas to the north).

The cause of this emerging outbreak of methane, as explained by AMEG, is a horrendous cycle that started 20 - 30 years ago when Atlantic and Pacific Ocean currents, warmed by greenhouse gases, flowed into the Arctic Ocean.

Variations in 20th century trends which do not correlate to c02 are routinely dismissed as either aerosols or heat going into the oceans, when it is very clear these are related to PDO cycles, which means climate sensitivity to c02 must be overstated.

The problem for that idea is that even if it is possible the reduced energy flow from ocean to air merely mimics on a miniscule scale what happens naturally when a negative ocean cycle reduces the flow of energy from ocean to air.

If you included Polar Ice Cycles in your climate models and included more snowfall when polar oceans are thawed and included less snowfall when polar oceans are frozen, the models would work much better.

If and when you can provide data or references to document your claims, or if you were to point me to those data or references — data and references that would help illustrate and document my posts, (which are about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events on global SST and TLT anomalies, and about the discharge / recharge aspects of ENSO, and about the impacts of ENSO, NAO, NPI, AMO on OHC, not the PDO, not what initiates ENSO events, not millennial ocean cycles, etc.)-- I would be happy to include it.

The main omissions in current climatology are to ignore the oceanic role in setting and maintaining AND CHANGING the Earth's temperature and failing to recognise that the speed of the hydro cycle changes in response to those oceanic forcings.In 1988 when this all started no one acknowledged the significance of ENSO events globally or the existence of 30 year phase shifts let alone a 500 year ocean cycle.

When examining a number of ocean cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation, it was observed that the various ocean cycles synchronised at certain moments after which climate seemed to shift to a new regime.

But when the cycle reverses, and deep ocean waters cycle back toward the surface, the warming increase will continue on as the long term observed trend has shown.

The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial / inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Ccycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch CyclesCycles.

On the topic of warmist scientists, one has to wonder why they define «climate» as a stretch of weather of 30 years when some of the ocean cycles take that long or longer and can run out of phase with each other.

I don't believe she indicated exactly when in the lunar cycle the spikes occurred, but since she postulated that lower ocean levels were putting less pressure on the ocean floor and allowing magma movement and leakage, these must have been at low tide.

Equatorial ocean temperatures fluctuate on a cycle; when they are warmer it's called an El Niño, and when they're cooler it's La Niña.

Sooner or later the cycle is bound to reverse, at which point we will experience accelerated global surface air warming when the ocean heat comes back to haunt us.

Co2, coming out of an ice age, is released from the ocean sink and part of the natural cycle when coming out of an ice age.

This guy has written on implications that freshwater systems are tying up as much or more carbon than oceans: http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/hanson/ It is hard to give credibility to ex cathedra assertions about how the climate works due to CO2 when large parts of the carbon cycle are not accounted for.

When I was looking at the carbon cycle in the oceans recently, I got the understanding that CO2 doesn't exist as a pure gas in the oceans.

In a 2013 speech on the floor of Congress, he falsely said «global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago» and that «global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles.»

The timing of the solar cycles and ocean cycles will drift relative to one another due to their asynchronicity so there will be periods when solar and ocean cycles supplement one another in transferring energy out to space and other periods when they will offset one another.

Why should we rule out UHI and ocean cycles when they are the most likely culprits?

Issues related to the annual cycle when comparing net ToA radiation balance to Ocean Heat Content are not discussed in the literature, another grave indication of sloppiness that has pervaded the field.