Sentences with phrase «changes in air temperatures do»

Not exact matches

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?

«Even if an area remains wet doesn't mean that it will be protected from the other aspects of climate change: rising and far more erratic air temperatures, higher rates of evaporation (evapotranspiration), and the rising concentration of CO2,» he said in an e-mail message.

One simply can not do arithmetic (least squares trends) on the temperature of environmental air and expect the result to reflect the changes in heat content.

ie When you heatup the air by the valid GHG radiative absorbtion process, does this higher temperature create a natural increase (ie CHANGE) in convection or Not?

Peer - reviewed literature about the effects of climate change are in broad agreement that air and surface water temperatures are rising and will continue to do so, that ice cover is declining steadily, and that precipitation and extreme events are on the rise.

«Willis builds a strawman Willis makes a logical fallacy known as the strawman fallacy here, when he says: The current climate paradigm says that the surface air temperature is a linear function of the «forcing»... Change in Temperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a simple energy balance model (probably from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climtemperature is a linear function of the «forcing»... Change in Temperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a simple energy balance model (probably from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climTemperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a simple energy balance model (probably from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climate system.

Can changes in air temperature or cloud cover account for that much heat, or do we need to consider ocean currents?

What difference between energy absorption and radiation do we need to induce in order to make the air temperature increase by 1 degree C, assuming no change in albedo?

The smallness of that variation from peak to trough of a single cycle has caused considerable doubt as to how significant changes in the air temperatures could occur at time scales of up to a century but the net energy delivery effect of a change of length does not appear to have been properly investigated.

Even in areas where precipitation does not decrease, these increases in surface evaporation and loss of water from plants lead to more rapid drying of soils if the effects of higher temperatures are not offset by other changes (such as reduced wind speed or increased humidity).5 As soil dries out, a larger proportion of the incoming heat from the sun goes into heating the soil and adjacent air rather than evaporating its moisture, resulting in hotter summers under drier climatic conditions.6

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

However, this doesn't work with the AMO, which tracks the large cyclic air temperature changes in the Arctic very closely but lags them by 5 - 10 years.

We don't get much ventilation air change in crawlspaces — the typical ventilation air change rate in a crawlspace is approximately 1 air change per hour (ach).2 In determining crawlspace surface temperatures we can pretty much ignore the ventilation air change.3 We can't ignore the ventilation air in the moisture balance but we can in the energy balancin crawlspaces — the typical ventilation air change rate in a crawlspace is approximately 1 air change per hour (ach).2 In determining crawlspace surface temperatures we can pretty much ignore the ventilation air change.3 We can't ignore the ventilation air in the moisture balance but we can in the energy balancin a crawlspace is approximately 1 air change per hour (ach).2 In determining crawlspace surface temperatures we can pretty much ignore the ventilation air change.3 We can't ignore the ventilation air in the moisture balance but we can in the energy balancIn determining crawlspace surface temperatures we can pretty much ignore the ventilation air change.3 We can't ignore the ventilation air in the moisture balance but we can in the energy balancin the moisture balance but we can in the energy balancin the energy balance.

The small fraction of that warming that's expressed by changes in surface air temperature does appear to have slowed over the past decade.

And here we are at impasse as long as we do not come to a consensus on the question on «how the evaporation process is responding to the changes in both the diurnal irradiation and the diurnal variation of temperature and humidity of the air above».

ii) Changes in the air alone can not affect the global equilibrium temperature because of oceanic dominance that always seeks to maintain sea surface and surface air equilibrium whatever the air tries to do.

back to the horizontal gradient, if the upper tropospheric thermal wind shear increase is greater than the decrease of the lower layer, then maybe the overall baroclinic instability would be stronger — but currently the upper level eddy circulations do not transport much heat poleward, so would the structure of cyclones change so that a deeper layer of air is involved in the thermal advection, compensating for a weaker temperature gradient?

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

The short and lazy answer to Matthew Marler's question about the column energetics that bring the system back to equilibrium is that GCMs do of course represent evaporation, sensible heating, etc in ways that are undoubtedly imperfect (e.g., via «bulk formulas» that transfer energy down - gradient of temperature or humidity differences between the surface and air aloft), but they are free to evolve in climate change scenarios in ways that are physically self - consistent.

So if 1 % of the heat from global warming is manifested in air temperatures, and 93 % in manifested in ocean temperature changes according to the IPCC, why do you think it is up to «tom0mason» to «prove» that the oceans are the control knob, since he is just reaffirming what even the IPCC already effectively says?

Don't show me temperature of the air — that can change because of energy that arrived decades ago and ended up in the oceans and was, «for causes unknown», released to the air which it heated and which heat is being lost to space, there being no other place for it to go.

How does this relate to the apparently predictable and patterned air temperature change recorded since 1880 (alternating 30 year periods of warming and pause in warming)?

It went something like this: hotel check - in, locate room, locate wifi service, attempt connection to wifi, wonder why the connection is taking so long, try again, locate phone, call front desk, get told «the internet is broken for a while», decide to hot - spot the mobile phone because some emails really needed to be sent, go «la la la» about the roaming costs, locate iron, wonder why iron temperature dial just spins around and around, swear as iron spews water instead of steam, find reading glasses, curse middle - aged need for reading glasses, realise iron temperature dial is indecipherably in Chinese, decide ironing front of shirt is good enough when wearing jacket, order room service lunch, start shower, realise can't read impossible small toiletry bottle labels, damply retrieve glasses from near iron and successfully avoid shampooing hair with body lotion, change (into slightly damp shirt), retrieve glasses from shower, start teleconference, eat lunch, remember to mute phone, meet colleague in lobby at 1 pm, continue teleconference, get in taxi, endure 75 stop - start minutes to a inconveniently located client, watch unread emails climb over 150, continue to ignore roaming costs, regret tuna panini lunch choice as taxi warmth, stop - start juddering, jet - lag, guilt about unread emails and traffic fumes combine in a very unpleasant way, stumble out of over-warm taxi and almost catch hypothermia while trying to locate a very small client office in a very large anonymous business park, almost hug client with relief when they appear to escort us the last 50 metres, surprisingly have very positive client meeting (i.e. didn't throw up in the meeting), almost catch hypothermia again waiting for taxi which despite having two functioning GPS devices can't locate us on a main road, understand why as within 30 seconds we are almost rendered unconscious by the in - car exhaust fumes, discover that the taxi ride back to the CBD is even slower and more juddering at peak hour (and no, that was not a carbon monoxide induced hallucination), rescheduled the second client from 5 pm to 5.30, to 6 pm and finally 6.30 pm, killed time by drafting this guest blog (possibly carbon monoxide induced), watch unread emails climb higher, exit taxi and inhale relatively fresher air from kamikaze motor scooters, enter office and grumpily work with client until 9 pm, decline client's gracious offer of expensive dinner, noting it is already midnight my time, observe client fail to correctly set office alarm and endure high decibel «warning, warning» sounds that are clearly designed to send security rushing... soon... any second now... develop new form of nausea and headache from piercing, screeching, sounds - like - a-wailing-baby-please-please-make-it-stop-alarm, note the client is relishing the extra (free) time with us and is still talking about work, admire the client's ability to focus under extreme aural pressure, decide the client may be a little too work focussed, realise that I probably am too given I have just finished work at 9 pm... but then remember the 200 unread emails in my inbox and decide I can resolve that incongruency later (in a quieter space), become sure that there are only two possibilities — there are no security staff or they are deaf — while my colleague frantically tries to call someone who knows what to do, conclude after three calls that no - one does, and then finally someone finally does and... it stops.