Sentences with phrase «different responses to warming»

The Cu cases also show strikingly different responses to warming with the two approaches (Figure 3).

Not exact matches

Understanding the response of the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to global warming requires quantitative data on ENSO under different climate regimes.

The metric they have developed, the Vegetation Sensitivity Index (VSI), allows a more quantifiable response to climate change challenges and how sensitive different ecosystems are to short - term climate anomalies; e.g. a warmer June than on average, a cold December, a cloudy September, etc..

They, too, assume an equivalence in radiative forcing between GHG and aerosol, What they do is add different estimates of the aerosol radiative forcing to the GHG forcing, while keeping the temperature response fixed at the observed recent warming.

[Response: There's some good thinking here, but I think you may have confused Gavin's discussion of the attempts by Andrae et al to infer climate sensitivity from recent warming with the question of whether there's a different sensitivity coefficient for aerosol vs GHG radiative forcing.

[Response: Dear Eric, I started to find the scientific case for anthropogenic warming compelling some time in the mid nineties, and naturally, different observers would come to this conclusion at somewhat different times.

The response to global warming of deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty in projections since current models predict different responses of these clouds.

My studies in 70s & 80s using rainfall data series over different parts of the globe matches the drought conditions over different parts — which was attributed to global warming by WMO and sent my response to Secretary General of WMO as those of my publications are with WMO library [book was reviewed by the Vice-President of Agrometeorology group in WMO].

Polar amplication is of global concern due to the potential effects of future warming on ice sheet stability and, therefore, global sea level (see Sections 5.6.1, 5.8.1 and Chapter 13) and carbon cycle feedbacks such as those linked with permafrost melting (see Chapter 6)... The magnitude of polar amplification depends on the relative strength and duration of different climate feedbacks, which determine the transient and equilibrium response to external forcings.

If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused).

Today and Wednesday a group of authors from across the different working groups — examining the basics of climate science, the impacts of warming and options for policy responses — are meeting at Jasper Ridge in northern California to come up with an approach for «consistent evaluation of uncertainties and risks.»

Over the weekend, a pair of very different climate studies — one physical, one social — illustrated two uncomfortable, and related, realities confronting society as it grapples with possible responses to human - driven global warming.

Whereas the appearance of similar warming events to the 1920 / 30s event at different times, with that warming event not being consistenly present in all ensemble members at the same times is evidence that it was an outcome of internal variability, not a forced response.

[Response: There's some good thinking here, but I think you may have confused Gavin's discussion of the attempts by Andrae et al to infer climate sensitivity from recent warming with the question of whether there's a different sensitivity coefficient for aerosol vs GHG radiative forcing.

There is uncertainty in the climate sensitivity of the Earth and in the response of the carbon cycle, and the papers are extremely useful in the way that they propagate these uncertainties to the probabilities of different amounts of warming.

They, too, assume an equivalence in radiative forcing between GHG and aerosol, What they do is add different estimates of the aerosol radiative forcing to the GHG forcing, while keeping the temperature response fixed at the observed recent warming.

If I understood Armour's paper correctly, he claimed that all feed - backs were close to linear in response to temperature over time, but that different regional warming rates (specifically, slow warming at high latitudes) could make the feed - backs and sensitivity appear to increase with time.

This book of research challenges readers to consider the costs and benefits of different responses to global warming.

Namely, it is hard to fingerprint when different numerical simulations give different responses... Just seeing for example that the troposphere warms up more than the stratosphere, doesn't mean much.

«The global mean climate responses to different forcings may differ because of the character of the forcings themselves (such as their geographical or vertical distribution) and because different forcings induce different patterns of surface warming or cooling, thereby affecting the net top - of - atmosphere radiation imbalance, and thus the ocean heat uptake rate.»

Coupled simulations, using six different models to determine the ocean biological response to climate warming between the beginning of the industrial revolution and 2050 (Sarmiento et al., 2004), showed global increases in primary production of 0.7 to 8.1 %, but with large regional differences, which are described in Chapter 4.

There's no reason I can think of that long - term and short - term response of the troposphere to warming / cooling events (at least between the scale of a few years to a few decades that's the issue here) would be any different.

We continually cut trees, throwing garbage any where we want, chemical waste from different industries are thrown in the bodies of water, smoke coming from cars, factories and even at home are not properly handled, there's still a lot of problems that we can address to each and every one but if we will not move or take any action in response to this issue our planet would die little by little, as we see earth today is now showing to us the damage we had made such as earth quake, landslide, acid rain, global warming and a lot more.

In 2009, the Copenhagen Consensus Center commissioned new research on the economics and feasibility of different responses to global warming, and then used Nobel Laureate economists to evaluate that...

The transient response is likely to be different from an equilibrium response as climate warms.

[Response: Your argument misses the point in three different and important ways, not even considering whether or not the Black Hills data have any general applicability elsewhere, which they may or may not: (1) It ignores the point made in the post about the potential effect of previous, seasonal warming on the magnitude of an extreme event in mid summer to early fall, due to things like (especially) a depletion in soil moisture and consequent accumulation of degree days, (2) it ignores that biological sensitivity is far FAR greater during the warm season than the cold season for a whole number of crucial variables ranging from respiration and photosynthesis to transpiration rates, and (3) it ignores the potential for derivative effects, particularly fire and smoke, in radically increasing the local temperature effects of the heat wave.

For the ice sheets the answer is probably no (but experts on the subject might have a better idea), but for the overturning circulation or the ecosystem changes, the answer is probably yes — i.e. a slower rate of warming could lead to a different response (allowing time for ocean mixing to mitigate the effects, or adaptation of species to the new conditions).

Then in response to the particular observation that the balloon data lie especially far away from the modelers» expectations, the defence is: but we all know the balloon data is so uncertain and tunable that it can yield lots of different interpretations, therefore it does not conflict with the hypothesis, so there's no need to doubt the hypothesis of strong CO2 warming.

Okay, I should be slightly careful here, as the expectation is really that the feedback response is not exactly linear as we double CO2, but this is thought to be because of different regions warming at different rates (polar amplification, for example) than because the response is actually non-linear.

Conversely, if 95 % was attributable to global warming, the expectations for future events would be quite different and so would the appropriate range of responses.