Sentences with phrase «from oceanic warming»

There are a number of dangerous ecological consequences from oceanic warming beyond its impact on surface and atmospheric temperatures.

Not exact matches

Records of sea surface temperature from oceanic sediment cores, for example, show that the magnitude of warming following several previous glaciations are well - correlated (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html).

Sparrow calls the spot «ground zero» for oceanic methane emissions resulting from ocean warming.

It can not be seen directly because of oceanic damping, but it does call for about ~ 0.3 C of warming (instead of ~ 0.1 C from pure TSI) in the early 20th century based on Lockwood's solar activity reconstructions.

Substantial and correlated changes in marine carbonate (CaCO3) content of oceanic sediments commonly accompany the transitions from cold glacial periods to warm interglacial periods.

You've got the radiative physics, the measurements of ocean temperature and land temperature, the changes in ocean heat content (Hint — upwards, whereas if if was just a matter of circulation moving heat around you might expect something more simple) and of course observed predictions such as stratospheric cooling which you don't get when warming occurs from oceanic circulation.

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.

Warming of the oceans leads to increased vertical stratification (decreased mixing between the different levels in the oceans), which would reduce CO2 uptake, in effect, reducing the oceanic volume available to CO2 absorption from the atmosphere.

It is possible that Lyman is measuring a transfer of oceanic heat from warm waters to cool waters through circulation changes than increased retention of solar energies?

Yet after all that, here you are, saying things like «Looks like an oceanic warming trend corresponding to the atmospheric warming trend from 1979 through 1998 begins around 2000, suggesting a delay of ca. 21 years.»

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.

Here's a brief update on the great heat - toting oceanic currents that at one time were thought to be at risk from human - driven warming of the climate.

They should have realised that top down high solar activity combined with bottom up positive oceanic influences would in combination be enough to produce the late 20th century warming without having to invoke a significant effect from more CO2.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this effect will do anything but get stronger from here on as the vast «crops» of oceanic bacteria adapt to both warmer ocean waters and increased CO2 and nutrient levels and simply increasingly cool the global atmospheric climate simply by «growing faster»!

We are talking fractions of a second.They say changes in the earth's rotation rate may effect the oceanic circulations, causing them to phase from cold to warm etc..

In order to properly understand, what is going on in the Arctic ocean, we first must understand the oceanic oscillation and the currents in this vast ocean, it is interesting to note, Sweden is recalling its ice breaker from the USA Antarctic survey, and there is concern in the sea of Okhotsk — where, for the last couple of years breaking the winter sea ice has been a major problem, colder here, relatively «warmer» there etc..

In effect they simply continue the distribution of the initial (solar induced) warming or cooling state around the globe and of course there are varying degrees of lag so that from time to time the other lesser oceanic oscillations can operate contrary to the primary Pacific oscillations until the lag is worked through.

I think the warming from 1980 to 1998 was mainly due to natural oceanic causes, with some help from additional natural and man - released CO2.

With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

Most of the actual warming of oceanic water comes from its absorption of visible light and UV and short wavelength IR at depth.

BTW, this is another reason to eliminate oceanic CO2 outgassing from warming as a source of atmospheric changes, this (expected eventually) effect also takes centuries.

In fact it is more likely that observed changes in the trend of global temperature will be the first and simplest indication as to when a global shift from solar / oceanic warming mode to solar / oceanic cooling mode and vice versa has occurred.

For one thing the two negative forcings cancel out much or most of the additional warming from the atmospheric CO2 and for another the atmospheric warming effect is miniscule in relation to the oceanic warming effect.

At present they are limited to guesses about ENSO but have nothing adequate about any other oceanic cycles and nothing about air circulation shifts apart from seasonal changes and a simple observation that warming moves them poleward.

I took the estimates of oceanic warming from 0 - 2000m and applied Henry's law of solubility (there's an equation on Wikipedia's Henry's law page for determining this) to see how much this would decrease the aqueous concentration of CO2.

Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming.

so I suspect that the Mediaeval warmth now emanating from the oceans may well warm the troposphere a little more during future years of warm oceanic oscillations.

A study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research also predicts that warmer oceanic and atmospheric temperature caused by climate change will produce even fiercer hurricanes in the future.

It seems from the observational evidence that the potentially cooling effect of a more disturbed solar surface is greater then the warming effect of the very small TSI increase at such times and the oceanic effect is far greater than either.

It is particularly remarkable that rainfall driven by the Westerly Maritime Stream from the Atlantic has not risen markedly since the 1970s despite the belief global warming has been dramatic during this period and the expectation of increased oceanic evaporation and associated precipitation that should accompany such warming.

«On the basis of the information in the public domain about solar cycles and the positive PDO it should have been blatantly obvious that the world would warm up without the need to speculate on a contribution from CO2 or anything else... I find Mr. [Alec] Rawls very helpful in illustrating the effect of time lags between solar input and oceanic oscillations... As Mr. Rawls points out...

As Arctic Ice decreases it exposes more warm water from the tropics carried up by the oceanic conveyor belt.

Of course if the ocean surface is frozen then all bets are off and any GHG warming in that case comes from atmospheric fluids not oceanic fluids.

A study under the auspices of University of Alaska Fairbanks doubles estimates of methane released from an important oceanic source which may be «leaking» the potent global warming gas as permafrost melts.

Current flux from the oceanic hydrates is small, but that will change as warming increases, and calculated future flux is based on assumptions that could be wrong.

What I would like to know is, what do global climate models say about the depth of the warm oceanic layer in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere near the U.S., both under the standard assumptions and under assumptions of greater runoff from Greenland which almost all glaciologists seem to find most likely.

This implies that hurricane intensity increase due to a possible global warming associated with increased CO2 is considerably smaller than that expected from warming of the oceanic waters alone.»

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

In common with many such crises throughout Earth history, there is direct evidence from the rock and fossil records for elevated atmospheric CO2, rising temperatures, increased weathering and run - off, sealevel rise, expanded oceanic anoxia as well as other warming - related environmental changes.