Sentences with phrase «global temperature decreased»

12 Natural Climate Changes Ice ages are times in Earth's history when Average global temperature decreased.

If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1 °C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5 °C, not seen in reality.

If we take a baseline of the last 7000 years, until recently, global temperature decreased at a rate of 0.01 °C per century.

Major volcanic eruptions have additional climatic effects beyond global temperature decreases and acid rain.

(2) «over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration,» since «for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,»

A simple linear fit model suggests that an increase in global cloud cover of 1 percent corresponds to a global temperature decrease of about 0.07 oC.

Not exact matches

But global temperatures would decrease even further if a comprehensive climate policy was enacted to generally reduce greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (green line).

To make mortality estimates, the researchers took temperature projections from 16 global climate models, downscaled these to Manhattan, and put them against two different backdrops: one assuming rapid global population growth and few efforts to limit emissions; the other, assuming slower growth, and technological changes that would decrease emissions by 2040.

On the other hand, it also remain a possibility that Earth just now is passing a temperature peak, and that global temperatures will begin to decrease within the coming 5 - 10 years.

Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits.

«With global climate change, temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere are expected to continue to decrease....

Hence, the decrease in global temperature in the period 1945 — 1960 is inconsistent with the continued rise in the calculated solar temperature signal.

What's more, the haze has masked the effects of global warming across large parts of China, particularly in the central and eastern regions, where daily high temperatures have actually been decreasing.

The team increased one forcing agent (see sidebar) in a climate model, for example carbon dioxide, and decreased another, say methane, so that global mean temperature didn't change.

The global mean temperature rise of less than 1 degree C in the past century does not seem like much, but it is associated with a winter temperature rise of 3 to 4 degrees C over most of the Arctic in the past 20 years, unprecedented loss of ice from all the tropical glaciers, a decrease of 15 to 20 % in late summer sea ice extent, rising sealevel, and a host of other measured signs of anomalous and rapid climate change.

In the central United States, for example, observational data indicate that rainfall increased, surface air temperature decreased, and surface humidity increased during the summer over the course of the 20th century concurrently with increases in both agricultural production and global GHG emissions.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00148.1 Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air — sea heat flux Q decreases.

He then confuses solar cycle length and solar cycle strength, but somehow concludes that global temperature will decrease over the next 2 cycles.

Droplets can persist for months to years leading to small decreases in global atmospheric temperatures.

«it is a proven fact that lighter surfaces within our urban environments will decrease climate temperatures if implemented on a global scale.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

While wiser heads counselled patience, Steve McIntyre predicted that the 1950 to 2000 global temperature trends would be reduced by half while Roger Pielke Jr predicted a decrease by 30 % (Update: a better link).

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

There's a slow cooling trend, as expected from the slowly decreasing insolation (the Milankovitch cycle), followed by an unexpected temperature spike at the end — the result of fossil fuel combustion on a global scale.

If one plots the records from GISS, HADCru, RSS and UAH; GISS is the outlier, and three of the four primary global temperature measuring systems show a decrease over the most recent six years and a downward trend over the past decade; not that this establishes a significant trend yet.

can point me to the data that show that global ocean temperatures are decreasing (if they are?)

«It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature temperature long - term trend from solar activity as expressed by the sunspot index are due to the increased number of high speed streams of solar wind on the decreasing phase and the minimum of sunspot in the last decade.»

Thus, even if it is rigorously demonstrated that for a given glacier a causal connection between the «global average» temperature and the decrease in the mass of a glacier exists, extrapolation to other glaciers is not recommended.

Global average surface temperatures are not expected to change significantly although temperatures at higher latitudes may be expected to decrease to a modest extent because of a reduction in the efficiency of meridional heat transport (offsetting the additional warming anticipated for this environment caused by the build - up of greenhouse gases).

If one postulates that the global average surface temperature tracks the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, possibly with some delay, then when the CO2 concentration continues to rise monotonically but the global average surface temperature shows fluctuations as a function of time with changes in slope (periods wherein it decreases), then you must throw the postulate away.

Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration -LRB-[CO2]-RRB- will offset these losses.

And if decreasing carbon emissions turns out not to affect global temperatures, at least it will free us from petroleum dependency and clear up the air.

re Gavin @ 223 I know what the mean global temperature is (actually, I don't, see below) but the question was why is this a meaningful metric for looking at changes over time, when you could get the same global mean from very different distributions of temperature (eg increase the poles, decrease the tropics) which would have very different interpretations of energy balance (at least if I am right that humidity matters)?

ie does a slightly lower density of air mean a slightly lower ground level temperature (temperature normally decreases with height at the lower air density), so that in reality adding CO2 and subtracting more O2 actually causes miniscule or trivial global COOLING, and the (unused) ability of the changed atmosphere to absorb radiation energy and transmit it to the rest of the air is overruled or limited by the ideal gas law?

First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.

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.

Three of the four global average temperatures indeed are decreasing in their trends (although the actual global mean temperatures are still warmer than the previous decades).

Long waves (infrared) light from the sun, GHGs, clouds, are trapped at the surface of the oceans, directly leading to increased «skin» temperature, more water vapor (a very effective GHG), faster convection (with more loss of heat to space in the tropics),... How each of them converts to real regional / global temperature increases / decreases is another point of discussion...

The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p < 0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long - term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high - speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.»

Actually global warming is supposed to increase precipitation in Antarctica, not decrease it — as raising the temperature puts more moisture in the air for precipitation.

-- It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout the 21st century on a global scale.

One might define a new term, at least a soft or analogical one: «science sensitivity,» the tendency of increasing global temperature to decrease future warming through scientific understanding leading to cultural and behavioral change.

Re Todd at # 1 and CM at # 5: Am I right in understanding that the key point is that it's quite possible for global surface temperatures to decrease even as the globe warms if more than the excess inflow of heat goes into the deep oceans?

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

This is a result of a weaker wind - driven ocean circulation, when a large decrease in heat transported to the deep ocean allows the surface ocean to warm quickly, and this in turn raises global surface temperatures.

Observed global temperature increase over this period was ~ 0.6 C. Staying within these error bars for all individual forcings the temperature could have decreased by 0.1 C!

~ 20 ppmv / K sensitivity of CO2 to global temperature change (assuming ~ 5 deg C global cooling at the LGM, and roughly 100 ppm decrease in CO2).

The GISS climate model (Hansen et al., 1992) did quite well in predicting the decrease in global temperature (and increase in stratospheric warming), and the subsequent recovery to normal, due to the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption.

A similar occurrence of decreasing global temperatures with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions took place during the 33 years from 1942 to 1975 (the 70's global cooling scare) so the stated correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming never actually existed.

There is also a natural variability of the climate system (about a zero reference point) that produces El Nino and La Nina effects arising from changes in ocean circulation patterns that can make the global temperature increase or decrease, over and above the global warming due to CO2.