Sentences with phrase «how warming ocean waters»

He shows how warming ocean waters gave Hurricane Katrina the added strength to blow right through Florida and on to New Orleans, and he documents worst - case scenarios for accelerated change.

He shows how warming ocean waters gave Hurricane Katrina the added strength to...

A study published on Monday in Nature Geoscience is among the first to create a detailed snapshot of how warming ocean waters are eating away at grounding lines around the continent.

A northern fur seal pup turned up at the front door of a Hayward ironworks shop Wednesday morning, the latest example of how warm ocean waters and a lack of food are wreaking havoc on a range of marine mammals.

Not exact matches

There are clues that these species may fare better than their stony counterparts after a disaster, but more research needs to be done to understand how storms, warming waters and ocean acidification can alter the composition of reefs and whether these changes are permanent or short - lived, Lasker says.

Researchers can measure annual changes in how the melt rate occurs, for example, or the effects of a single pulse of warm deep - ocean water.

That region, he says, is susceptible to even small amounts of warming and cooling from the atmosphere — and how cold the water gets influences how much or how little it sinks, thereby driving or delaying, respectively, the ocean conveyer belt.

His discoveries have also revealed how warming ocean temperatures and acidification of ocean water caused by climate change lead to coral bleaching and death.

As the ocean warms and fresh water from melting ice increases, scientists have yet to fully know how that will affect fish communities and coral reefs.

The next step was see how those factors were influenced by ENSO; while El Niños and La Niñas are defined by how much warmer or colder than normal tropical Pacific ocean waters are, they trigger a cascade of reactions in the atmosphere that can alter weather patterns around the globe.

Cheung and his colleague used modeling to predict how 802 commercially important species of fish and invertebrates react to warming water temperatures, other changing ocean properties, and new habitats opening up at the poles.

Lead author, Dr Michael Singer from School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at Cardiff University, said: «In drylands, convective (or short, intense) rainfall controls water supply, flood risk and soil moisture but we have had little information on how atmospheric warming will affect the characteristics of such rainstorms, given the limited moisture in these areas.»

Understanding how carbon flows between land, air and water is key to predicting how much greenhouse gas emissions the earth, atmosphere and ocean can tolerate over a given time period to keep global warming and climate change at thresholds considered tolerable.

El Niño is most widely known for how it shifts the location of warm ocean waters, leading to cooler - than - normal waters in the western tropical Pacific but warmer - than - normal in the central and eastern parts of the basin.

They created a model to determine how temperatures of ocean waters could change shallow reef systems when sea levels rise and climate warms in the future.

[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?)

However, this in itself is not enough to define what level of warming is «dangerous,» especially since the projections of actual impacts for any level of warming are highly uncertain, and depend on further factors such as how quickly these levels are reached (so how long ecosystems and society have had to respond), and what other changes are associated with them (eg: carbon dioxide concentration, since this affects plant photosynthesis and water use efficiency, and ocean acidification).

There is so little understanding about how the ocean parses its response to forcings by 1) suppressing (local convective scale) deep water formation where excessive warming patterns are changed, 2) enhancing (local convective scale) deep water formation where the changed excessive warming patterns are co-located with increased evaporation and increased salinity, and 3) shifting favored deep water formation locations as a result of a) shifted patterns of enhanced warming, b) shifted patterns of enhanced salinity and c) shifted patterns of circulation which transport these enhanced ocean features to critically altered destinations.

Lawrence, yes, the accumulation of heat in the oceans is the primary metric of global warming, but it's distributed unevenly, and we don't know how much of it will be diluted in cold waters and how much, when and where it will be released to the atmosphere.

and how about nasa's recent report of the apparent arctic ocean gyre reversal to clockwise that is underway — that the counterclockwise gyre of the arctic ocean rotation (since 1989) which apparently also been largely responsible for centrifigally pushing arctic ice into warmer waters, speeding melting — should now predictably result in increasing amounts of ice due to the centripetal pull of the ice toward the north pole?

He presents a mechanism showing how from time to time they cause warm water to rise to the ocean surface — and stay there.

But again, I have to ask a question that you have not answered: How does the heat trapped by CO2 at the surface skin warm the subsurface ocean waters since it is widely acknowledged that the infrared heat from CO2 can't penetrate into the ocean itself?

Also, it seems the condition of more exposed and warmer arctic waters also adds to the moisture content, regardless of how much ocean was covered by ice at the beginning of the cycle.

It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.»

How can the atmosphere control the climate via its CO2 content when the oceans contain 15 times more of it and CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water (the oceans release CO2 to atmosphere when they warm for whatever reason).

What I want you to see in the images is how the model forecasts the storm (the low pressure center) to quickly intensifies once it hits the warm ocean water.

Francisco (09:12:57): Go ahead and explain how additional heat in the atmosphere moves from the atmosphere to the ocean surface, and from there to the deep oceans, ** without first producing any warming in the atmosphere or on the ocean surface water ** Just because you don't know how it can happen, does not mean that it is not happening, just that you don't understand how.

Researchers travelled to the Southern Ocean off Antarctica — one of the most remote and inaccessible oceans in the world — to investigate how warm water is making its way to the ice sheets, causing them to melt.

Here how it works: Think of the ocean as an open pot of warm water with constant heat input (TSI) at a level where water is held at constant temperature by evaporation and internal convection.

AGW climate scientists seem to ignore that while the earth's surface may be warming, our atmosphere above 10,000 ft. above MSL is a refrigerator that can take water vapor scavenged from the vast oceans on earth (which are also a formidable heat sink), lift it to cold zones in the atmosphere by convective physical processes, chill it (removing vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) or freeze it, (removing even more vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere) drop it on land and oceans as rain, sleet or snow, moisturizing and cooling the soil, cooling the oceans and building polar ice caps and even more importantly, increasing the albedo of the earth, with a critical negative feedback determining how much of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, changing the moment of inertia of the earth by removing water mass from equatorial latitudes and transporting this water vapor mass to the poles, reducing the earth's spin axis moment of inertia and speeding up its spin rate, etc..

Warmer temperatures do not necessarily translate to more water vapour in an air - water vapour mixture, Chris please explain how «warmer the oceans and the atmosphere» equate to «more greenhouse effect from water vapour in the atmosphere.&Warmer temperatures do not necessarily translate to more water vapour in an air - water vapour mixture, Chris please explain how «warmer the oceans and the atmosphere» equate to «more greenhouse effect from water vapour in the atmosphere.&warmer the oceans and the atmosphere» equate to «more greenhouse effect from water vapour in the atmosphere.»

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become.

- Jo]- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

-- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the maths to show how an increase in temperature of the vents (a tiny percentage of the ocean floor), converts to the Joules required to warm the mass of the 700-2000 meter layers of water GLOBALLY.

The relevant factor may therefore not be how warm the water is in a given ocean basin, but how warm it is relative to other ocean basins.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has the same temporal pattern of warm and cool surface water — which raises interesting questions about how these northern and southern hemisphere ocean phenomenon are linked.

How about this logic... if the ocean is an enormous heat sink and ate their warming, and this was not anticipated or built into the models AT ALL, then the models are all cr @p, the huge sensitivity to C02 (amplification) is in the same crock of poo (i.e. the ocean provides damping and there is no amplification), and there really is no such thing as CAGW... there's only 134 pathetic excuses for climate models that are all wrong because the scientists didn't consider that 75 - ish percent of the globe was covered with water.

Just one question Jarvis, how will giving Greenpeace money change the Arctic temperature, or change the ocean currents such that warmer waters don't reach the Arctic?

Only during the short periods around noon on sunny days — when the skin layer is warmer than the water below — is there any point in worrying about how long energy from DLR remains in the skin layer and what fraction is lost upward rather than downwards (warming the ocean).

Warming of surface ocean waters is well known, but how the subsurface waters are changing is less clear.

Warming waters are causing marine species to shift; however, how species found in the cold waters of the Southern Ocean will adapt is unclear.

We need to explain how warmer waters absorbing less CO2 could become less alkaline as seems to have been happening... Less CO2 absorption should mean more alkaline oceans but they have been getting less alkaline.

In the late 1970s, Munk realized that you could monitor global ocean temperature by how fast sound travels within the sea, as sound travels faster through warmer, lighter water.

How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part?

though warm water going down seems «odd»... but how does the wind carry heat into the deep ocean?

This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is... changes in the large - scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months.

Depending on how the continents are arranged the global ocean conveyor belt changes and having a land mass over a pole blocks warm water from getting at the ice to melt it.

(And I still can't see how a newly open and increasingly warm summer Arctic Ocean won't produce more water vapor, vapor whose GHG properties will further accelerate Arctic warming — or is that completely offset by increased cloud formation??)