Sentences with phrase «affect global temperature»

A)- Cloud cover is reduced B)- Winds are reduced C)- Higher temperature water upwells D)- Upwelling is reduced or stopped E) Surface winds are reduced while winds aloft are strong enough to carry away humidity and prevent clouds and precipitation The occurences of el Nino seem to affect the global temperature even more than adjusting data or pretending tree rings are ancient thermometers.

The «it's natural variation» argument depends on the assumption that there are lots of other factors (known or unknown) that affect global temperature, so there is no reason to think that CO2 has any effect at all.

Which one is the one that breaks down the idea that heat transport can affect global temperature trends?

Despite the fact that both the models and the YD hypothesis indicate changes in heat transport can affect the global temperature, and in the case of the YD so dramatically temperatures go against the forcing trend, you are steadfast in your beliefs that it is impossible that any long term trend in heat transport can be affecting modern climate.

Sure that doesn't affect the global temperature much but it does influence policy in the US.

That said, other than an increase in solar intensity (the sole source of energy in)- which has not happened as it has in fact been the opposite recently, none of the internal variability factors that affect global temperature could have produced the monotonic warming over 35 years that we have observed.

Flashback: 2009: NASA's James Hansen: «Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much»

There is no explanation in your analysis as to why those biases do not affect the global temperature record at any time other than WWII.

Does TSI still affect global temperature?

The pattern of warming that we have observed, in which warming has occurred in the lower portions of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling has occurred at higher levels (the stratosphere), is consistent with how greenhouse gases work — and inconsistent with other factors that can affect the global temperature over many decades, like changes in the sun's energy.

There are also events possible that can't be foreseen, which could affect the global temperature record.

One common objection to climate policy that would reduce CO2 emissions is that the contemplated emissions reductions will be too modest to affect global temperature.

Since we don't know a lot about how PDO and AMO affect global temperature, there isn't much we can deduce from this part of the 1980s.

In the 70s, climate scientists recognized two phenomena that might affect global temperature: (1) greenhouse warming, i.e., putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and (2) cooling caused by particulate discharge, i.e., soot.

«Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,» said Hansen.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35 % increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature.

Although CO2 and other GHGs are widely thought to affect global temperature the more I think about it the less I see how!

Drawing from both social psychology and climate science, the new model investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to extreme climate events and affect global temperature change.

As example of how greenhouse gases have affected global temperatures, 2016 was almost 0.5 °F (0.9 °C) warmer than 1998, both years that experienced comparably strong El Niños.

How much this will affect global temperatures, which are currently projected to rise as much as 9 °F by 2100, is impossible to say.

A great many climate scientists acknowledge the difficulty I've raised, and their response is based on their analysis of the various forcings affecting global temperatures, NOT the simplistic juggling of arcane statistical formulae.

Dr. Sami Solanki — director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: «The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.»

In other words, we know the natural causes that affected global temperatures over the 1000 years.

As an example of this, we do have a pretty good understanding of how large volcanic eruptions affect global temperatures.

There are other factors affecting global temperature besides greenhouse gases, some of which have a profound impact on short - term variations.

What surprised me was that such a significant effect was unrecognized in all the years that the pan evaporation rate had been measured, even though it has been affecting global temperatures.

And if decreasing carbon emissions turns out not to affect global temperatures, at least it will free us from petroleum dependency and clear up the air.

In other words, the fundamental reason scientists think atmospheric CO2 strongly affects the global temperature is not climate model output — it's just * basic radiative physics *!

The IPCC tried to downplay the role of water vapor in affecting global temperatures by amplifying the role of CO2 and CH4.

On the other hand; alternative energy sources are considered green energy technology since they don't produce natural gases that affects the global temperatures.

El Niño and La Niña are prime examples of how the oceans can affect global temperatures.

However, they are a localised phenomenon, i.e., they do not affect global temperatures.

This being only an eyeball study, if you have a real study that shows how they do affect global temperatures by affecting regional temperatures please share.

If you have a study that shows they affect global temperatures but not the regional temperatures where they are located, please explain the magic that allows this.

The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO.

«The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,» said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I would have considered it good science to understand the effects of each of the major natural changes that are known to affect global temperatures, including the multidecadal ocean oscillations, long before I started looking at any anthropogenic effects.

According to Lomborg, renewable energy is too expensive, and this is the reason that «Climate summit after climate summit has failed to affect global temperatures.»

A measured value of how much CO2 affects global temperatures, which is identifyable above the noise of natural variations..

I do not dispute the fact that it affects global temperatures.

As discussed last week, several reports have shown in the last year or two that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not significantly affect global temperatures, contrary to endless repetitions to the contrary by climate alarmists and the mainstream press.

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature.

That's unlike the many on the right who imagined either that (i) the data revisions affected the global temperature record (ii) anyone, prior to this, had made anything of the significance of 1998 as regards the continental US.

Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect.

(Revised September 23, 2016 by addition of a new final section by Dr. James Wallace) As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics.

Only the major volcanic eruptions that reach the stratosphere that affect global temperatures with cooling and how much depends on the lattitude of the planet.

He says low values of climate sensitivity will still affect global temperatures as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, but increases in temperature may be of similar magnitude to naturally driven temperature cycles, a scenario that has strong implications for how we manage causes and consequences of climate change.

Climate scientists are well aware that other factors do affect global temperatures.

Yes, such processes involve redistribution of heat, but heat redistributed from or to ocean depths to the surface would affect global temperatures at these time scales, whereas (as you imply) geographical redistribution at the surface would not (or at least much less).

It would appear rather odd that Bhaskar et al. (2017) would wish to claim, for example, that methane gas has been a significant driver of warming, but at the same time reject water vapour and cloud cover changes as factors affecting global temperatures.