Sentences with phrase «explain atmospheric temperatures»

Why do so many folks keep trying to explain atmospheric temperatures with only infrared radiation?

Not exact matches

To explain this apparent paradox, the researchers called upon a theory for how the global carbon cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature are linked on geologic timescales.

The ongoing disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic from elevated temperatures is a factor to changes in atmospheric pressure that control jet streams of air, explained James Overland, an oceanographer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

Turning up the heat seems to increase the rate at which the plants produce methane, Keppler says, which could explain why atmospheric levels of methane were high hundreds of thousands of years ago when global temperatures were balmy.

«For various periods over the last 60 years, we have been able to combine important processes: atmospheric variability, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, water and air temperatures, the occurrence of fresh surface water, and the duration of convection,» explains Dr. Marilena Oltmanns from GEOMAR, lead author of the study.

«At normal atmospheric pressure and temperature, where air is 21 percent O2, the material already contains oxygen and can not absorb more,» McKenzie explains.

More data are needed to explain those shifts, but atmospheric temperatures likely played a role, said Claus - Dieter Hillenbrand, the study's lead author and a senior marine geologist with the British Antarctic Survey.

So apparently you're suggesting that decadal - scale precipitation patterns (more, less rainfall) and temperature changes are better explained by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Although the primary driver of glacial — interglacial cycles lies in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar energy driven by changes in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun («orbital forcing»), reconstructions and simulations together show that the full magnitude of glacial — interglacial temperature and ice volume changes can not be explained without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and the associated climate feedbacks.

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

Maue explained the atmospheric dynamics within a «heat dome» that amplify temperatures well beyond the heating impact of southern sunshine.

It seems the Warmists bet the farm on a correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures in the period 1976 to 1998, and are at a loss to explain the lack of correlation since then.

Regressing changes in Tmax on monthly changes in these variables as well as atmospheric CO2 shows significant positive roles for sun and rain in explaining temperature chnage since 1958, but negative for atmospheric CO2.

But «in order to explain the drop in atmospheric growth rate of CO2, we would need an average drop in global temperatures of about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 ° C), but the temperatures only dropped by about one degree (0.9) Fahrenheit (0.5 °C) globally.»

Radiatively warmed (whether directly or indirectly through collisions) molecules are placed higher in the atmospheric column than can be explained just from their individual gas constants and once at that height have an enhanced cooling effect equal to their enhanced warming effect with a zero net effect on surface temperature.

A range of a mere 4 Watts per square metre or less in Total Solar Irradiance is sufficient to explain changes in Earth's atmospheric temperature for the past 400 years.

Anyway, today we try to explain the exact opposite: how northern hemisphere ice ages can quite suddenly weaken — at least in case of the last one, which had its cold peak around 18,000 years ago, after which atmospheric CO2 levels «suddenly» (over a millennium or so) rose by 30 per cent, and temperatures started to climb closer * to our current Holocene values.

Pinatubo was particularly good for this, because as Soden et al 2002 showed, the GCMs of the day not only accurately modeled the atmospheric drying after the eruption, but also demonstrated that a positive water vapor feedback was required to explain the MSU - measured lower troposphere temperatures.

The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level.

(b) A more vigorous atmospheric circulation in the region of the Norwegian Sea would explain the observed facts, namely the recession of the ice - limit, the increased frequency of south - westerly winds, rather than south - easterly, in North Norway, and the consequent marked rise in winter temperatures which has attained its greatest magnitude in the north of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Something like albedo might explain the 1,500 - year cycle without a two - state mechanism; the D - O flips might arise from an abrupt atmospheric reorganization triggered by accumulating regional differences in sea surface temperatures.

Are you saying that because he uses a LTE model with atmospheric layers to explain carbon dioxide IR radiation (and re-radiation), that he is implying that one should find non-smooth temperatures with increasing height in such layers?

NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.

That said, while the general explanation I've heard for the historical relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature is from CO2 solubility, that probably is too slow a mechanism to explain the relatively rapid change in CO2 levels from 1850 to 1975.

That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture: So far humans have caused about 1 °C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures — in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

Importantly, the region of temperature trends explained by trends in sea ice and the atmospheric circulation is the region of trends that are statistically significant.

In both GOGA and TOGA simulations, the surface temperature over sea ice can respond to both prescribed sea ice and simulated atmospheric circulation changes, which explains differences with observations

They could explain the on / off behaviour of global climate, that and the time taken by the oceans to respond to atmospheric temperature.

However, I think your last comment concluding that the rise in atmospheric CO2 not explained by increased ocean temperatures, must therefore be anthropogenic, is unjustified, as it doesn't consider the effect of increased temperature on the land based sources and sinks.

Emanuel explains, the observed atmospheric temperature does not keep pace with SST which leads to a decrease in vertical stability and an increase in potential intensity.

This comment has already gotten too long, but I'd like to point out that based on what we know so far, it looks very much as if Salby is making the same mistake that McLean made (in attributing the temperature rise to ENSO) and, even more similarly, that Mr Lon Hocker made in a post at WUWT in which he made virtually the identical argument to this one (temperature changes explain the atmospheric CO2 trend).

Other effects like temperature - dependent CO2 solubility in ocean water, carbon stored in the land biosphere, weathering rates, and ocean nutrient inventories may help explain the rest of glacial − interglacial changes in atmospheric pCO2 (26, 27).

Could this help explain the sudden slowing of atmospheric temperature?

A problem that the AGW alarmists could never solve or explain is how CO2 could be causing global warming when the historical record shows that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow temperature rises, not the other way around.

They find that the different moisture availability over land and ocean leads to different atmospheric temperature lapse rates (latent heat release), which in combination with a well - mixed free (above boundary layer) atmosphere can explain the land — sea contrast.

In order to explain the deviation between the surface temperature record and his calculated atmospheric CO2 level, Salby blames the surface temperature record as being unreliable.

Rather, there is strong geo - historical evidence to suggest CO2 level has very strong correlation with surface and atmospheric temperatures, as well as credible theories explain causality from concentration to temperature.

The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis is far from settled science, but it is clearly a much better hypothesis (in terms of explaining the available data) than the IPCC's assumption that global temperatures are determined primarily by changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

This phenomenon explains why global temperature today is not increasing despite the fact that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is constantly increasing.

Are you referring to the link regarding «Venus atmospheric pressure explains Venus surface temperature?»

74: Then please explain to me how in the past atmospheric levels of CO2 have been as high as 3000 ppm with global temperatures the same as they are today.

Hockey Schtick January 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm «Not true, planetary surface temperatures on Earth and other planets can be fully explained by the adiabatic lapse rate + solar insolation alone, no IR active gases required, only equivalent atmospheric pressure + solar insolation.»

Not true, planetary surface temperatures on Earth and other planets can be fully explained by the adiabatic lapse rate + solar insolation alone, no IR active gases required, only equivalent atmospheric pressure + solar insolation.

Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes over the past century suggest that the average global temperature will rise by between 1.5 º and 4.5 ºC if the atmospheric COconcentration doubles.

«We are only able to state that the slowing in growth that we observed is consistent with the hypothesis that increases in temperature will cause decreases in tree growth,» explained Joseph Wright, a researcher at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.If this trend persists, tropical forests will likely emit ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the future — effectively raising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.