Sentences with phrase «global atmospheric temperatures at»

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.

Not exact matches

New measurements by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies indicate that 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, and that the past decade or so has seen some of the warmest years in the last 132 years.One way to illustrate changes in global atmospheric temperatures is by looking at how far temperatures stray from «normal», or a baseline.

«At first, tropical ocean temperature contrast between Pacific and Atlantic causes slow climate variability due to its large thermodynamical inertia, and then affects the atmospheric high - pressure ridge off the California coast via global teleconnections.

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.

While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1 % yr — 1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1).

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later.

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.

Future global temperature change should depend mainly on atmospheric CO2, at least if fossil fuel emissions remain high.

We use measured global temperature and Earth's measured energy imbalance to determine the atmospheric CO2 level required to stabilize climate at today's global temperature, which is near the upper end of the global temperature range in the current interglacial period (the Holocene).

Despite your insistence otherwise, you evince at best a shallow understanding of basic principles of climate science (hint: while radiative forcing is known to be at least partially controlled by atmospheric CO2, no «natural», i.e. internal source of variability has been demonstrated that could drive a global temperature trend for half a century), as well as an inability to recognize genuine expertise.

I am not assuming — there is overwhelming evidence (from copious data, much of which can be found on or linked to from this web site) that global temperatures are rising at a rate that may soon seriously disrupt human civilization, and that the best explanation for the cause of that projection (based on even more data) is human - driven, rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature.

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.

Put it this way if atmospheric levels of CO2 were fixed at to - day's level (380ppm) indefinitely when would we see global temperatures 0.5 deg C higher than to - day.

We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels, global temperature rise is kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/: «Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, recently gave a talk on the «global warming hiatus,» a slowdown in the rise of the global mean surface air temperature.

Transient climate sensitivity: The global mean surface - air temperature achieved when atmospheric CO2 concentrations achieve a doubling over pre-industrial CO2 levels increasing at the assumed rate of one percent per year, compounded.

The physics underlying the lapse rate will insure dew point temperatures at some level in the atmospheric column, although the level will increase with global warming (the resulting high (er) clouds may give a positive feedback).

But the evidence shows this can't be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.

People simply fail to look at the most basic of radiative physics in assessing the impact of atmospheric CO2 on global surface temperature.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.»

Nor does it seem a coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature.

Perhaps more telling is the fact that the JMA measure reveals no hiatus in the pace of global atmospheric temperature increase with all years since 1998 at or above the trend line.

changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration FOLLOW changes to global temperature at all — yes, all — temperatures, and a cause can not follow its effect, 3.

changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration FOLLOW changes to global temperature at all — yes, all — time scales, and a cause can not follow its effect,

But examining temperature anomalies separate from atmospheric circulation changes is dubious science at best and blaming global warming does nothing to improve early storm warnings or accurately assess the frequency of extreme events.

After all most climatologists have been calling for the stabilization of atmospheric CO2e 450 ppm or less, keeping the global temperature increase at about 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.

It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

available peer - reviewed, science - based evidence to model the implications of their proposals for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, global mean surface temperature, sea level rise, and other climate change impacts at the global scale.

Quantitatively, Vasskog et al. estimate that during this time (the prior interglacial) the GrIS was «probably between ~ 7 and 60 % smaller than at present,» and that that melting contributed to a rise in global sea level of «between 0.5 and 4.2 m.» Thus, in comparing the present interglacial to the past interglacial, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently 30 % higher, global temperatures are 1.5 - 2 °C cooler, GrIS volume is from 7 - 67 % larger, and global sea level is at least 0.5 - 4.2 m lower, none of which observations signal catastrophe for the present.

One of the central criticisms aimed at the infamous Great Global Warming Swindle, for example, is precisely that it failed to entertain the idea that the post-1940 decline in global temperatures was the result of increases in sulphurous emissions that masked the forcing effect of rising atmospheriGlobal Warming Swindle, for example, is precisely that it failed to entertain the idea that the post-1940 decline in global temperatures was the result of increases in sulphurous emissions that masked the forcing effect of rising atmospheriglobal temperatures was the result of increases in sulphurous emissions that masked the forcing effect of rising atmospheric CO2.

Comparison of global lower troposphere temperature anomaly over the oceans (blue line) to a model based on the first derivative of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa (red line).

m (that's the computer - predicted radiative forcing on a doubling of atmospheric CO2) is only enough to increase the mean global surface temperature by 0.68 degC at a baseline temperature of 288K according to the Stefan - Boltzmann law.

In a comparison of 17 computer models of world climate, all predict global warming will kick in over Antarctica, and most indicate temperatures in the interior of the continent will rise faster than in the rest of the world, said Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

And we also know that the correlation between global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 is statistically not very robust, so that something else must also «be at work» to cause the gradual warming (or «slow thaw», as you've dubbed it).

While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1 % yr — 1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1).

My own examination of the warming we see at present seems to indicate that the atmospheric CO2 rose first (beginning with the industrial revolution and the massive use of fossil fuels) and this has been followed by the rising global mean temperature.

If increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased global ground temperature, I would at least expect some incidents in the ice core records where a significant rise in CO2 was the initial cause of a significant temperature rise.

At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

The Lewis and Curry paper said the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity — the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration — was 1.64 degrees.

[Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] conclude that the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration on tropical sea surface temperatures (SST) is likely to be 0.5 ºC (up to 1.9 ºC at 99 % confidence), with global mean temperature changes about 1.5 times as large.

Dissolved GHG flux (Fd) was calculated as: where Csur is the gas concentration in surface water, Ceq is the gas concentration when in equilibrium with the atmosphere at ambient temperature (global atmospheric concentrations were used), and k is the gas exchange velocity calculated as: where Sc is the Schmidt number calculated from empirical third - order polynomial fit to water temperature and corrected at 20 °C.

Future global temperature change should depend mainly on atmospheric CO2, at least if fossil fuel emissions remain high.

We use measured global temperature and Earth's measured energy imbalance to determine the atmospheric CO2 level required to stabilize climate at today's global temperature, which is near the upper end of the global temperature range in the current interglacial period (the Holocene).

Park, J. (2009), A re-evaluation of the coherence between global - average atmospheric CO2 and temperatures at interannual time scales, Geophys.

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.

Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

Chen and Tung are correct in linking the temperature of the Atlantic ocean, both at depth and surface, with global average atmospheric temperature.

If we take a further step and consider the atmospheric state at a location (or even the global average) with respect to temperature or precipitation, we may observe that physics does not imply any preservation law for temperature (the total energy is preserved, not temperature) or for precipitation (the total water balance is preserved, not the rate of precipitation).