Sentences with phrase «direct effect of warming»

So the mechanism of global warming is an indirect effect of increasing CO2, not the direct effect of warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.

In addition to the direct effects of warming temperatures, there are indirect effects of climate change.

Not exact matches

But in order to enjoy the cooling and warming effect of the pillow, direct contact is recommended.

«We found that vegetation change may have a greater impact on the amount of stream flow in the Sierra than the direct effects of climate warming,» said lead author Ryan Bart, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSB's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

Volk: Yeah, yeah that's becoming more and more of a concern as people are realizing that there is not just the greenhouse effect of CO2 being a greenhouse gas and warming the Earth up, but there is a direct chemical effect of its dissolving in the ocean as carbonic acid, and this is going to affect many marine creatures in the coming decades.

A recent study published in Scientific Reports, led by researchers of the University of Barcelona in collaboration with several other research institutions, shows that the direct effect of climate change in regulating fuel moisture (droughts leading to larger fires) is expected to be dominant, regarding the indirect effect of antecedent climate on fuel load and structure - that is, warmer / drier conditions that determine fuel availability.

The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming.

Direct effects are impacts to trees that arise directly in response to changes in temperature and precipitation; indirect effects are secondary impacts, such as increased number of fires associated with warming temperatures, which then affect trees and forests.

-- 7) Forest models for Montana that account for changes in both climate and resulting vegetation distribution and patterns; 8) Models that account for interactions and feedbacks in climate - related impacts to forests (e.g., changes in mortality from both direct increases in warming and increased fire risk as a result of warming); 9) Systems thinking and modeling regarding climate effects on understory vegetation and interactions with forest trees; 10) Discussion of climate effects on urban forests and impacts to cityscapes and livability; 11) Monitoring and time - series data to inform adaptive management efforts (i.e., to determine outcome of a management action and, based on that outcome, chart future course of action); 12) Detailed decision support systems to provide guidance for managing for adaptation.

The direct warming effect of CO2 is relatively small, and only becomes dominant through positive feedbacks in computer models.

Direct effects of climate change on trees and forests, such as warmer, wetter conditions improving forest productivity or warmer, drier conditions increasing tree mortality, will be secondary to the impacts of altered forest disturbance regimes, such as changes in forest fire behavior and area burned.

In addition to the direct impacts of rapid Arctic warming — most notably the loss of sea ice — scientists also think that it could be having an indirect effect on weather patterns in the mid-latitude regions of the northern hemisphere.

«The warming effect could be through the direct heating to the air, snow and sea ice by absorbing sunlight, and then accelerating the melting of snow and sea ice,» Wang said.

Other factors would include: — albedo shifts (both from ice > water, and from increased biological activity, and from edge melt revealing more land, and from more old dust coming to the surface...); — direct effect of CO2 on ice (the former weakens the latter); — increasing, and increasingly warm, rain fall on ice; — «stuck» weather systems bringing more and more warm tropical air ever further toward the poles; — melting of sea ice shelf increasing mobility of glaciers; — sea water getting under parts of the ice sheets where the base is below sea level; — melt water lubricating the ice sheet base; — changes in ocean currents -LRB-?)

black soot has also been found by a recent university of california study to be the direct cause of the albedo warming effect on the otherwise highly reflective and pristine white arctic ice & snow.

The Skeptical Science site refers to a paper by Flanner in 2009, a summary of which can be found here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/, that shows the direct heat from burning fossil fuels is just 1 % of the effect of the CO2 produced by this burning on the absorption of heat by the atmosphere from the sun, i.e. global warming.

The logic of their grand thesis runs something like this: - ☻ Lacis et al (2010) calculates that LL GHG forcing in the pre-industrial world provided a direct warming equal to 25 % of the 35 °C of greenhouse effect they model.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

(This doesn't include any solar - heating (albedo, etc.) feedbacks, which is necessary for a direct comparison; the GHE warming of about 33 K is only the effect of the atmopheric LW optical thickness, and thus doesn't include any feedbacks on solar heating)

with respect to the direct effect of the sun on arctic meltinc, i failed to mention that sunspot activity has been directly correlated to warming and cooling trends over the course of geohistory.

Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide.

What is the effect of warmer Antarctic waters on Antarctic ice that is in direct contact with that warmer water?

What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the direct radiational effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world's foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2's direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

The actual evidence of lives lost due to the already occurring direct and indirect effects of global warming should be completely ignored.

These effects roughly balance each other out, leading to a direct relationship between the total amount of CO2 emitted over a given time period and warming.

Yet that still excludes the acceleration of Permafrost Melt both by its own emissions» warming effect and by its direct and timelagged reinforcement by other major feedbacks.

Since the heart of the AGW proposition is that CO2 has a direct effect on warming, the observational evidence that shows no warming is not something you can ignore.

Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as «from the atmosphere» and not from the Sun direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent warming period we had from the Sun's activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse Effect backradiation.

One of the unfortunate side effects of which was that (and this is not necessarily your field's fault in the direct sense) every two - bit environmental activist, campaigner, and pressure group took it as license to fully politicize the science with naive and exaggerated claims about the «effects» of global warming (apparently it's responsible for everything), or where the «tipping point» was (30 years, no 20 years, no 10 years, etc.) or how quickly we could «de-carbonize» our economy (50 % reduction in 40 years, no 70 % in 30 years, no 90 % in 15 years).

With the transformation of a Pacific typhoon into an extra tropical cyclone we can easily see a direct link between a warmer Pacific and he coming outbreak of cold weather next week in the US.The effect on the jet stream is the key.

R. Gates: With the transformation of a Pacific typhoon into an extra tropical cyclone we can easily see a direct link between a warmer Pacific and he coming outbreak of cold weather next week in the US.The effect on the jet stream is the key.

BTW: There is no physical evidence that the assumption of a net positive feedback is correct, and much physical evidence to suggest that the real world feedbacks are net negative and will reduce the proposed direct warming effect of CO2 towards (closer too) 0.

The IPCC estimates that carbon dioxide's direct effect is 1.2 °C 1 of warming (that is, before feedbacks are taken into account) for each doubling of the carbon dioxide level.

[1] The direct warming effect attributable to a doubling of CO2 — absent all other factors, which is assumed to be equal to 1.2 degrees Celsius.

Direct warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 does not create a catastrophe, and at most, according to the IPCC, might warm the Earth another degree over the next century.

If the direct effect of the aerosol increase is considered, surface temperatures will not get as warm because the aerosols reflect solar radiation.

We'd expect some improvement from adding CO2 overall, since its direct effects would account for perhaps 30 % of the warming.

It's also one of the reasons that I linked to Hoffman et al at Bart's in the first place... None of this changes the fact that global warming is going to be a huge hit on planetary biodiversity further into this century, and over coming centuries, both through direct effects and through exacerbation of other non-climate-change impacts.

«In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming.

Mark, the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm, as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph, is a direct result of the yearly average «warming» of the world's ocean waters as they recover from the effects of the LIA.

Partly this is because it's hard to beat the blunt biodiversity effects of direct habitat destruction (like deforestation) and partly that is because climate warming is often a slow process, for instance in the deep oceans, where its ecological effects are «outpaced» by the rapidly escalating plastic pollution — admittedly an impossible comparison.

In effect, the major direct cause of global warming in the US may be the Environmental Protection Agency!

These partially offsetting effects lead to the expectation that direct human shifts in water storage on land will not have large effects on sea level in comparison to the effects of ocean warming and mountain - glacier and ice - sheet melting (Wada et al., 2012), although notable uncertainties remain in regards to future groundwater use and reservoir construction, and these effects vary considerably depending on the specific location (NRC, 2012e).

As a result of our recent Global Science Report on global warming ruining our bananas, one of our fans directed our attention to an important effect of climate change that we somehow missed, back in 2008, when the alarmists at the BBC wrote that it was threatening haggis.

The direct CO2 - fertilisation impact and warming effect of rising atmospheric CO2 have contrasting effects on their dominant functional types (trees and C3 grasses may benefit from rising CO2 but not from warming; C4 grasses may benefit from warming, but not from CO2 - fertilisation), with uncertain, non-linear and rapid changes in ecosystem structure and carbon stocks likely.

And before anyone starts to argue that we have left out the direct (i.e., local) effect of global warming — that warmer air holds more moisture and thus it can rain more frequently and harder — McCabe and Wolock report very few long - term trends that would be indicative of steadily rising moisture levels.

A wide range of human activities affect marine biodiversity both in direct ways, such as exploitation by fisheries, habitat loss due to dredging, filling, and other construction influences, fishing gear impacts, and pollution, and in less direct ways, including effects of global change resulting in acidification, warmer waters, and coastal inundation.

Since solar effects, both direct and indirect, are more than sufficient to account for net estimated temperature change over the period of significant fossil fuel usage, have humans been warming or cooling the planet?