Sentences with phrase «between atmospheric warming»

Ray: To what extent does the disequilibrium between atmospheric warming and oceanic warming suppress rainfall?

From it, I'll only address the SkS «thermal inertia» quote, which Victor took to imply a lag in response: the proposed 21 - year delay between atmospheric warming and oceanic warming.

Not exact matches

The most important of these was an apparent mismatch between the instrumental surface temperature record (which showed significant warming over recent decades, consistent with a human impact) and the balloon and satellite atmospheric records (which showed little of the expected warming).

That said, the efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine is rather low; from time to time, inefficiency causes the disparity between the warm source and the cold sink to increase.

In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.

«Using a numerical climate model we found that sulfate reductions over Europe between 1980 and 2005 could explain a significant fraction of the amplified warming in the Arctic region during that period due to changes in long - range transport, atmospheric winds and ocean currents.

This so - called constant - composition commitment results as temperatures gradually equilibrate with the current atmospheric radiation imbalance, and has been estimated at between 0.3 °C and 0.9 °C warming over the next century.»

Chen, K., Gawarkiewicz, G. G., Lentz, S. J. & Bane, J. M. Diagnosing the warming of the Northeastern US Coastal Ocean in 2012: a linkage between the atmospheric jet stream variability and ocean response.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

For example, in Earth atmospheric circulation (such as Hadley cells) transport heat between the warmer equatorial regions to the cool polar regions and this circulation pattern not only determines the temperature distribution, but also sets which regions on Earth are dry or rainy and how clouds form over the planet.

The El Niño - Southern Oscillation cycle refers to a fluctuation between unusually warm (El Niño) and cold (La Niña) waters in the tropical Pacific, with associated changes in atmospheric circulation (the Southern Oscillation)(Figure 2 - 5).

-- The El Niño - Southern Oscillation cycle refers to a fluctuation between unusually warm (El Niño) and cold (La Niña) waters in the tropical Pacific, with associated changes in atmospheric circulation (the Southern Oscillation)(Figure 2 - 5).

One recent study examining the Palaeocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5 - 9 °C, found that «At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records» (Zeebe 2009).

So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

Working from detailed sketches in a painterly, expressionist style and with a primarily figurative subject matter, the artist skilfully transitions between warm and cold palettes, creating deeply atmospheric canvases.

But tremendous natural variability occurs in the large - scale atmospheric circulation during all seasons, and even in summer the links between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather are not supported by other observational studies.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

Now, if there's a single take - away from this summary, it would be that the science on the relationship between fossil fuel combustion, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, and global warming and climate change was really settled by 1979.

In Relationships between Water Vapor Path and Precipitation over the Tropical Oceans, Bretherton et al showed that although the Western Pacific warmer surface waters increased the water in the atmosphere compared to the Eastern Pacific, rainfall was lower in the Western Pacific compared to the Eastern Pacific for equal amounts of water vapor in the atmospheric column — e.g., about 10mm / day in the Western Pacific, versus ~ 20mm / day in the Eastern Pacific at 55 mm water vapor, the peak of the distribution of water vapor amounts.

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

[UPDATE 3/6, 1 p.m.:] Isaac Held, a climate modeler at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., responded today with some caution about seeking relationships between the ocean and atmospheric changes around the tropics, and also drawing conclusions about their relationship to global warming.

Redistribution of heat (such as vertical transport between the surface and the deeper ocean) could cause some surface and atmospheric temperature change that causes some global average warming or cooling.

Neither volcanoes nor a warming ocean would suck up atmospheric oxygen... As a side remark: the subtle difference between the rise in CO2 and the equivalent drop in O2 permits to estimate the partitioning of the ocean and land sinks of CO2.

The abstract below is quite clear in finding no evident relationship between ice loss and atmospheric or marine factors related to greenhouse - driven global warming:

Note that he used the past in his sentence «satellite data showed no warming» and then he goes on «The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like.»

No, you miss the point about the Trenberth «Travesty» statement, it means that the claims in the field that they had detected the relationship between atmospheric [CO2] and temperature, and from this could predict that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause catastrophic warming were unsupported by the evidence.

While the conditions in the geological past are useful indicators in suggesting climate and atmospheric conditions only vary within a a certain range (for example, that life has existed for over 3 billion years indicates that the oxygen level of the atmosphere has stayed between about 20 and 25 % throughout that time), I also think some skeptics are too quick to suggest the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 during the last 550 million years falsifies the link between CO2 and warming (too many differences in conditions to allow any such a conclusion to be drawn — for example the Ordovician with high CO2 and an ice age didn't have any terrestrial life).

We know the planet will warm between about 1.5 and 4.5 °C in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the «climate sensitivity»).

By contrast, atmospheric temperatures measured from weather satellites show only insignificant warming between 1978 and 1997 — as do the independent data from weather balloons around the world.

Recent research has yielded insights into the connections between global warming and the factors that cause tornadoes and severe thunderstorms (such as atmospheric instability and increases in wind speed with altitude7, 8).

This strong correlation between atmospheric temperature and the level of carbon dioxide is highly suggestive, but does not prove on its own, that rising levels of carbon dioxide are causing warming.

Judith I understand the APS actually wrote to IPCC questioning on what basis they determined that certainty of the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is INCREASING.

The statement that the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever is nonsense.

This sentence seems to be an endorsement of alarmism: «In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.»

Rather than questioning the primary role of the atmospheric CO2, our modelling results allow us to put forward that the atmospheric CO2 is not the whole story and that, owing to the overwhelming effect and interplay between the paleogeography, the water cycle and the seasonal response, the climate system may undergo subtle climatic changes (as the 4 °C global warming simulated here between the Aptian and the Maastrichtian runs).

Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2.»

And we also know that the correlation between global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 is statistically not very robust, so that something else must also «be at work» to cause the gradual warming (or «slow thaw», as you've dubbed it).

«The authors write that «the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a naturally occurring fluctuation,» whereby «on a timescale of two to seven years, the eastern equatorial Pacific climate varies between anomalously cold (La Niña) and warm (El Niño) conditions,» and that «these swings in temperature are accompanied by changes in the structure of the subsurface ocean, variability in the strength of the equatorial easterly trade winds, shifts in the position of atmospheric convection, and global teleconnection patterns associated with these changes that lead to variations in rainfall and weather patterns in many parts of the world,» which end up affecting «ecosystems, agriculture, freshwater supplies, hurricanes and other severe weather events worldwide.»»

I don't care what physicists say about CO2, historical & modern data says there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels & temperature, except in that warming raises CO2 levels.

According to Klotzbach et al. (2010), which the Watts paper references, there should be an amplification factor of ~ 1.1 between surface and lower troposphere temperatures over land (greater atmospheric warming having to do with water vapor amplification).

(Fingerprint studies draw conclusions about human causation that can be deduced from: (a) how the Earth warms in the upper and lower atmosphere, (b) warming in the oceans, (c) night - time vs day - time temperature increases, (d) energy escaping from the upper atmosphere versus energy trapped, (e) isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere and coral that distinguish fossil CO2 from non-fossil CO2, (f) the height of the boundary between the lower and upper atmosphere, and (g) atmospheric oxygen levels decrease as CO2 levels increase.

Moreover, the two ISPM statements above refer to the vague term «atmospheric warming» without even distinguishing between the troposphere and stratosphere.

The climate science is indisputable... the known physics requires that each tonne of new CO2 emissions will have a smaller impact than the previous tonne... there is no escaping the actual logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming...

Average planetary temperatures increased by a «net» of 0.7 degrees C (1.3 F) between 1900 and 2000, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise — but not in a straight line: they rose 1900 - 1940, cooled 1940 - 1975 and warmed 1975 - 1995.

Here, we have shown that this warming was associated and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to south - westerly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea.»

relationship between global atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions.

Surely these differences would be more significant if some showed cooling, other Global temperature measurements such as Radiosonde, SST's and the proxy atmospheric water vapor also indicate warming, so inconsistancies between the indexs surel are more a technical issue.

How hurricanes develop also depends on how the local atmosphere responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, and this atmospheric response depends critically on the cause of the change.23, 24 For example, the atmosphere responds differently when local sea surface temperatures increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, versus when sea surface temperatures increase more uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of human - caused heat - trapping gases.18, 25,26,27 So the link between hurricanes and ocean temperatures is complex.

(c) It may also be objected that the atmospheric circulation depends on the difference of temperature between low and high latitudes and, hence, should be weakened instead of strengthened by a warming in the arctic.

Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites, Stephen Po - Chedley and Qiang Fu, 10/2012.