Sentences with phrase «actually warms the surface»

The warmer it gets, the less each additional watt per metre actually warms the surface.

Not exact matches

At least part of the answer may be that climate measurements are underestimating the amount of surface warming actually taking place.

The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

I disagree as to whether this is a «key» issue for attribution studies, but as to when anthropogenic warming began, the answer is actually quite simple — when we started altering the atmosphere and land surface at climatically relevant scales.

So while the troposphere does warm as a function of increasing GHGs, the maximum change is not at the surface, but actually in the mid-troposhere.

The IPCC purports to have a highly confident explanation for the warming since 1950, but it was only during the period 1976 - 2000 when the global surface temperatures actually increased.

We do not know what the MOC has actually been doing for lack of data, so the authors diagnose the state of the MOC from the sea surface temperatures — to put it simply: a warm northern Atlantic suggests strong MOC, a cool one suggests weak MOC (though it is of course a little more complex).

«Somewhat counter-intuitively, a land — sea surface warming ratio greater than unity during transient climate change is actually not mainly a result of the differing thermal inertias of land and ocean, but primarily originates in the differing properties of the surface and boundary layer (henceforth BL) over land and ocean (Manabe et al. 1991; Sutton et al. 2007; Joshi et al. 2008 (henceforth JGW08), Dong et al. 2009) as well as differing cloud feedbacks (Fasullo 2010; Andrews et al. 2010).»

(1) Most of the warming would actually occur near the surface in areas with shallow cold dry air masses, such as in Siberia and northern Canada where it would not have a large effect.

The paleoclimate record (8.2 kyr, and earlier «large lake collapses») shows a dramatic drop in surface temperatures for a substantial period of time when the ocean circulation shuts off or changes, but is that actually what would be expected under these warming conditions?

I still don't understand the fixation on proving that CO2 causes global warming, when basically all surface heat is actually derived from the sun.

As far as I understand it, hurricanes actually warm the deeper layers (though they do temporarily cool the surface which adjusts through air - sea exchange very quickly after the storm has passed).

As for Pluto, I actually know of a few articles (a little small to make a consensus) that assesses plutonian atmosphere is thickening, presumably showing a warming of its surface.

Actually to reach a new, higher equilibrium temperature, the Earth surface (including oceans) must warm and thus the radiative budget MUST be unbalanced, less radiation must be emitted in space compared to the (unchanged) incoming solar radiation.

On a related note... is it true that the «margin of error» for the «global surface temperature» is actually larger than the net warming in the 20th century?

Stratospheric cooling accompanied by surface warming is actually PREDICTED by GHG model yet GW deniers present the stratospheric cooling part as «proof» that global warming was NOT happening!!

Its hard to see how the oceans can be warming dramatically due to anthropogenic causes if the sea surface temperature (controlled for ENSO, ENSO afteraffects etc) is actually relatively stable.

The author's points on non-linearity and time delays are actually more relevant to the discussion in other presentations when I talked about whether the climate models that show high future sensitivities to CO2 are consistent with past history, particularly if warming in the surface temperature record is exaggerated by urban biases.

I am finding that the more I read the more I come toward the conclusion that we can not actually tell with reasonable certainty whether increased CO2 has or has not warmed the Earth surface.

Although he doesn't actually come out and say it, Evans suggests that the global warming trend in the surface temperature record is an artifact caused by the urban heat island (UHI) effect:

If you look from the surface of the Earth right up into the stratosphere, 20 miles above the surface of the Earth, what we've actually observed in weather balloon measurements and satellite measurements is this complex pattern of warming low down and cooling up high.

An even more worrisome result is that the adjustment procedure for one of the popular surface temperature datasets actually increases the temperature of the rural (i.e. best) stations to match and even exceed the more urbanized (i.e. poor) stations... the adjustment process took the spurious warming of the poorer stations and spread it throughout the entire set of stations and even magnified it.

Second, I haven't said that «global mean (surface) temperatures aren't actually a measure of global warming.»

It was only when «global warming» stopped that he and others started saying global mean (surface) temperatures weren't actually a measure of global warming.

As evident in the figures the near surface air temperatures are actually warmer over the Arctic Ocean (by over 1 °C in large areas) when the sea ice absorbs solar radiation and transfers some of this energy as sensible heat back into the atmosphere.

It follows that we do not know that the post 1850 warming shown in the surface models actually exists.

The various kinds of evidence examined by the panel suggest that the troposphere actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20 - year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere).

Then, especially when there is excessive cloud cover over the oceans, the Sun's energy absorbed above the clouds can actually make its way down to the ocean surface (and below) warming the oceans by non-radiative processes, not by direct solar radiation which mostly passes through the thin surface layer and could barely raise the mean temperature of an asphalt paved Earth above -35 C.

The attempt to involve «fluorocarbons» and other superfluous «concepts» is based still in the misinterpretations of Energy prevalent within «greenhouse science» as still the Energy incident to the surface, persistently within the Visible and Lower UV spectrum, has NOT been observed to alter in any manner sufficiently significant to cause either «warming» or «cooling» in interaction with the materials actually present both within the atmosphere, or on the planetary surface.

To consider the claims of «greenhouse warming» from one arena of SCIENCE then, if you also look at the atmospheric absorbance of energy (see link below), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of IrR (especially Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved.

They actually say something different:» For example, most mid-latitude studies show that the heat island intensity (the difference between the temperature of the warmest location in the city and the background rural value) of the near surface air layer reaches its maximum a few hours after sunset on calm.

By trapping heat lower down and warming the surface of the Earth, greenhouse gases actually cool the stratosphere.

Not only are all climate engineering elements highly toxic, but by chemically nucleating sea surfaces in the polar regions the climate engineers are actually preventing rapidly warming seas from releasing their heat.

Because lapse rate (particularly in the tropics) should decrease under warming conditions (this is actually the most important negative feedback), the troposphere should warm faster than the surface.

Factor in the fact that soils amd water are at least ~ 1000 times more dense than air and the idea that gases can heat warmer surfaces like soils and especially water whilst most of the atmosphere is actually much colder just seems - well — ludicrous.

Warmists change definitions to suit themselves — reduction in the rate of cooling becomes warming, the surface of the Earth is not actually the surface, the temperature is not actually the temperature, the top of the atmosphere is not the top of the atmosphere, and so on.

The main problem with the whole proposition of a «raised ERL» mechanism of surface warming is that no planet holding an atmosphere actually emits its heat to space from some particular level or some specified temperature surface.

You most obviously have not noticed that even according to the Book of Warm, surface temperatures are not actually rising!

The frequent refrain «no warming since 1998» relies on a double cherry - pick: First off, by choosing 1998, the hottest year ever in the satellite record, as a starting point and, secondly, by disregarding the more reliable measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface where we actually live.

The combined effect of all these changes is actually to reduce the rate of surface warming over the past 100 years compared to what we see in the raw temperature data.

Actually, as a noted in the post about Chen and Tung (2014) at my blog... http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/will-the-next-el-nino-bring-an-end-to-the-slowdown-in-global-surface-warming/... which was also cross posted at WUWT, the vast majority of the warming of the surface of the global oceans during the satellite era is associated with the upward steps (staircases) caused by the residuals from the 1986/87/88, the 1997/98 and the 2009/10 El Nino events.

And the thinner the ice, the easier it is actually to move it by winds, and the easier it is to be melted by the underneath warmer ocean and above surface air temperature.

I found it to be in the model ball park (perhaps a bit larger, actually) which implied a large warming bias in the surface data, a large cooling bias in the satellite data, some less large combination of those two, or an unknown real climactic effect on lapse rate variation that only operates on the long term and is absent from current models:

Despite concerns over global warming, scientists have discovered something that may have actually limited the impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in recent years by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth.

Other characteristics of the Earth will affect the net position such as the distribution of the land and sea surfaces but given the predominance of ocean surfaces and the fact that most energy comes in at the equator which is mostly oceanic then it seems most likely that the net global effect of more greenhouse gases is actually a miniscule cooling rather than a miniscule warming.

Anyone remember, when Spencer's UAH data showed supposedly no warming of the lower and mid troposphere, which was used by AGW - «Skeptics» back then to claim that global warming claims based on the surface temperature data were wrong, but turned out to be actually a problem with Spencer's own retrieval algorithm (Fu et al., Nature 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02524)?

But it actually makes sense: El Ninos raise atmospheric temps because a deep pool of warm water in the western Pacific gets spread out over a larger area, raising sea surface temperatures over a big chunk of the Pacific.

I hypothesize that it is actually the NOAA and HadCRUT4 data, which have some cool bias due to polar amplification of the surface warming in the Arctic and the smaller coverage of the Arctic regions by latter data sets.

According to UAH data, the surface is actually warming a bit faster than the lower atmosphere.

But there is also the problem that GH warming should actually be at a faster rate in the troposphere than at the surface (according to IPCC), and this clearly doesn't seem to be the case.