Not exact matches
However, no research has shown menthol to
actually cause a
decrease in the
temperature of the skin or muscles.
While the pattern for Central and Western Europe was one of a consistent increase
in flood risk, the study also found that flood risk may
actually decrease with warmer
temperatures in some countries
in Eastern Europe, but those results also show a high degree of uncertainty.
There is
actually an estimate that for major crops like wheat, rice and maize, that every degree Celsius rise
in temperature above current
temperatures could potentially
decrease crop yields by between 3 - 7 % due to thermal stress.
What's more, the haze has masked the effects of global warming across large parts of China, particularly
in the central and eastern regions, where daily high
temperatures have
actually been
decreasing.
would a plausible physical explanation be that the deep ocean and ice sheets are still responding somewhat to the post-glacial
temperature increase (eg, T - T0, 0 > 0), but that the faster components of SLR like the surface oceans and glaciers were
actually responding to the
decrease in temperature since the early Holocene?
That would also imply that (T - T0 (t)-RRB- must be negative during the pre-900 period when SLR = 0... would a plausible physical explanation be that the deep ocean and ice sheets are still responding somewhat to the post-glacial
temperature increase (eg, T - T0, 0 > 0), but that the faster components of SLR like the surface oceans and glaciers were
actually responding to the
decrease in temperature since the early Holocene?
ie does a slightly lower density of air mean a slightly lower ground level
temperature (
temperature normally
decreases with height at the lower air density), so that
in reality adding CO2 and subtracting more O2
actually causes miniscule or trivial global COOLING, and the (unused) ability of the changed atmosphere to absorb radiation energy and transmit it to the rest of the air is overruled or limited by the ideal gas law?
The most favored explanation has been that the «lapse rate,» or
decrease in temperature as you go up
in the atmosphere, has
actually been increasing.
Actually global warming is supposed to increase precipitation
in Antarctica, not
decrease it — as raising the
temperature puts more moisture
in the air for precipitation.
Even if clouds were
decreasing there would be the clear sky super greenhouse effect where the rate at which downwelling thermal radiation grows relative to increasing
temperatures is
actually higher
in the tropics than the rate at which surface thermal radiation emissions increase.
A warming climate creates warmer
temperatures in the north, so
in that respect,
decreasing wind shear, so it could
actually lead to fewer tornadoes, according to Dixon.
The clear evidence is that extreme high
temperatures are not increasing
in frequency, but
actually appear to be
decreasing.
Well, except that
in 5 to 10 more years, the current embarrassment of non-increasing global
temperatures may have become the terminal disease of
actually decreasing global
temperatures as we continue to ride the solar cycle down, and all of the people who are currently «embattled» but still viewed as being noble martyrs for a cause will be treated professionally as if they have a mix of Ebola and Leprosy, especially those that bent ethical rules
in order to promote something untrue.
Daily
temperature variability is
actually decreasing,
in contrast to CMIP5 simulations and projections.
While extreme changes
in temperature may
decrease photosynthesis and phytoplankton reproduction, slighter
temperature increase may
actually improve photosynthesis,» he explains.
However, the upper OHC for the top 275 m shows the same stasis as for the surface
temperature (Fig. 7),
in fact for this example the OHC (0 — 275 m)
actually decreases.