Sentences with phrase «global atmospheric heat»

Zhang and Delworth and Zhang et al. showed by using models that, as the northward surface heat transport by the AMOC is increased, the global atmospheric heat transport decreases in compensation (and vice versa), providing a multidecadal component to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

If La Nina / El Nino can affect global air temperatures in a period of a few years, than other changes in ocean currents (driven by AGW) can affect global atmospheric heat content in a few years.

Not exact matches

On a global scale, the heating of atmospheric molecules causes the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, to expand and stretch higher during the day; it then settles back down as it cools at night.

The complex interactions of atmospheric turbulence and heat transport affect global climate.

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

Yet despite the importance of these «atmospheric rivers» for the global water and heat cycles, the mechanism behind their formation is still a mystery.

The mid-Pliocene was the last time atmospheric CO2 levels were similar to today's, trapping heat and raising global temperatures to above the levels Earth is experiencing now.

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.

That could allow heat from the ocean to be released into the atmosphere — causing a jump in atmospheric global warming, Trenberth says: «This could be a very important year.»

All that extra heat in the Pacific warms the air above, leading to more rising air than normal in that region, which affects the global atmospheric circulation.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause an imbalance in Earth's heat budget: more heat is retained than expelled, which in turn generates global surface warming.

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

Gray believes that the increased atmospheric heat — which he calls a «small warming» — is ``... likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.»

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory showed that global climate models are not accurately depicting the true depth and strength of tropical clouds that have a strong hold on the general circulation of atmospheric heat and the global water balance.

Polar amplification, in which temperatures at the poles rise more rapidly than temperatures at the equator (due to factors like the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation of heat from the equator to the poles), plays a major role in the rate of ice sheet retreat.

Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide do not only cause global warming, but probably also trigger increased occurrences of extreme weather events such as long - lasting droughts, heat - waves, heavy rainfall events or extreme storms.

In the «Ozone» series of the 1990s, hazy, fluorescent sparks of orange were splashed upon placid blue skies, suggesting indeterminate atmospheric effects of global warming, smog, sun, and heat.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

Polar amplification, in which temperatures at the poles rise more rapidly than temperatures at the equator (due to factors like the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation of heat from the equator to the poles), plays a major role in the rate of ice sheet retreat.

And no, there is no huge plunge in tropical or global surface air temperatures when the ocean circulation spins up because there is a near - compensating decrease in poleward heat transport via the atmospheric circulation.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

Redistribution of heat (such as vertical transport between the surface and the deeper ocean) could cause some surface and atmospheric temperature change that causes some global average warming or cooling.

You may now understand why global temperature, i.e. ocean heat content, shows such a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years — as shown in the ice core records.

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

I do not think atmospheric temperatures are a consistent and precise proxy for the total heat content of the global system.

Jacobson, M., 2001: Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409:695 - 697; Sato, M. et al., 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.

Many experts on the Arctic say that global warming is causing the ice to melt and that the warming is at least partly the result of the atmospheric buildup of heat - trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks.

If this heat were instantly trans - ferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today's estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximatly 18 % lower (for example, the «Best» model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2).

However, as in the FAR, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than current estimates, the actual «best estimate» model sensitivity was closer to 2.1 °C for doubled CO2.

One of the top three strongest events on record, this particular warming of sea surfaces in the Pacific coincided with never before seen global heat as atmospheric CO2 levels spiked to above 405 parts per million on some days during February and March.

DK12 used ocean heat content (OHC) data for the upper 700 meters of oceans to draw three main conclusions: 1) that the rate of OHC increase has slowed in recent years (the very short timeframe of 2002 to 2008), 2) that this is evidence for periods of «climate shifts», and 3) that the recent OHC data indicate that the net climate feedback is negative, which would mean that climate sensitivity (the total amount of global warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, including feedbacks) is low.

Water takes longer to heat up and cool down than does the air or land, so ocean warming is considered to be a better indicator of global warming than measurements of global atmospheric temperatures at the Earth's surface.

But it does indeed add up to centennial variability in floods and drought and in global ocean and atmospheric heat content.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

This empirical finding contradicts Spencer's hypothesis that cloud cover changes are driving global warming, but is consistent with our current understanding of the climate: ocean heat is exchanged with the atmosphere, which causes surface warming, which alters atmospheric circulation, which alters cloud cover, which impacts surface temperature.

The anomaly of the ocean heat content is more important than the atmospheric temperature anomaly for the conclusion whether global warming stopped or whether it hasn't, anyway.

So how our environmental future plays out now is that as the poles melt, the ocean heats, and water surface area increases, atmospheric H2O skyrockets and some time later as the temperature passes through 4 deg C heading for 5 deg C global temperature rise, the ocean currents start to stall.

The evolution of global mean surface temperatures, zonal means and fields of sea surface temperatures, land surface temperatures, precipitation, outgoing longwave radiation, vertically integrated diabatic heating and divergence of atmospheric energy transports, and ocean heat content in the Pacific is documented using correlation and regression analysis.

His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.

I am very bad at the find - the - pea - in - the - shell game, otherwise known as explaining where the AGW heat is going if the global atmospheric temps are pausing.

Unfortunately, we don't have good ocean heat content data for this period, while the data we do have — global mean atmospheric surface temperature — is dominated by ocean oscillations.

If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).»

We analyze spatial patterns of precipitation globally associated with forest loss by calculating shifts in the global tropical precipitation band, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), associated with changes in cross-equatorial atmospheric heat transport using equation 2.21 from [33].

Anomalies in the volcanic - aerosol induced global radiative heating distribution can force significant changes in atmospheric circulation, for example, perturbing the equator - to - pole heating gradient (Stenchikov et al., 2002; Ramaswamy et al., 2006a; see Section 9.2) and forcing a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation that in turn causes a counterintuitive boreal winter warming at middle and high latitudes over Eurasia and North America (Perlwitz and Graf, 2001; Stenchikov et al., 2002, 2004, 2006; Shindell et al., 2003b, 2004; Perlwitz and Harnik, 2003; Rind et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006).

(Revised September 23, 2016 by addition of a new final section by Dr. James Wallace) As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the trGlobal Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the trglobal temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics.

Perhaps the negative feedback of cloud cover has kicked in, dampening global warming, or the ocean absorption of atmospheric heat is playing a new and more decisive role.