Sentences with phrase «ice increased only»

When the model held the polar winds at a constant level, the sea ice increased only 20 percent as much.

Not exact matches

Ice cream is definitely a good «only» for dairy And I actually think having kids increases that feeling that we're not doing enough — I constantly feel this way even though I'm always busy with something.

To scale up, increase the drink ingredients only — you'll have enough ice cubes for several cocktails.

In high cirrus clouds, which consist purely of ice crystals, the researchers, however, came across a surprisingly strong reaction to laser irradiation: As described in PNAS, the laser pulses increase the number of ice particles by up to a factor of 100 within only a few seconds.

«While more research should be done, we should be aware that an increasing number of studies, including this one, suggest that the loss of Arctic sea ice cover is not only a problem for remote Arctic communities, but could affect millions of people worldwide.»

The exact date and value of the minimum sea ice extent in 2017 can only be determined in the coming weeks, after a significant increase.

Only 7 percent of the excess energy trapped in the climate system by increasing greenhouse gases goes into the land, air, and ice, though, while 93 percent of that energy goes into the oceans.

For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the «Charney sensitivity»), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1 % increasing CO2 after 70 years).

Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8 °C of warming so far, calling 2 °C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier.»

There's only one danger regarding this approach: do not try to drink ice - cold water to increase your energy expenditure for warming it up.

Our modelled values are consistent with current rates of Antarctic ice loss and sea - level rise, and imply that accelerated mass loss from marine - based portions of Antarctic ice sheets may ensue when an increase in global mean air temperature of only 1.4 - 2.0 deg.

«This uncertainty is illustrated by Pollard et al. (2015), who found that addition of hydro - fracturing and cliff failure into their ice sheet model increased simulated sea level rise from 2 m to 17 m, in response to only 2 °C ocean warming and accelerated the time for substantial change from several centuries to several decades.»

The only explanation that we have for the sustained downward trend in sea - ice extent is the increase in greenhouse - gas concentrations.

«Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8 °C of warming so far»

Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8 °C of warming so far, a target of 2 °C seems almost cavalier.

The only way to reconcile the results would be to have had a sharp compensating increase in freshwater from the ice sheets adding to sea level (from 0.7 mm / yr to 2.9 mm / yr).

All climate models tell us that it is the Arctic sea ice cover that declines first, and that Antarctic ice extent falls only later, and may even (as observed) temporarily increase in response to changing patterns of atmospheric circulation.

If my guesstimates are anywhere near close, and I did the math right, the increase in seasonal min to max sea ice should have increased the thermohaline circulation by ~ 1Sv (as an annual average — the flow should follow the freeze up, only occuring in the fall).

Not only we have no ability to make a reliable regional forecast, but the current thinking suggests that Antartcica is net - net accumulating ice due to increased precipitation.

Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8 °C of warming so far, calling 2 °C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier.

So the main issue for me is that all «serious» studies show only «statistical trends» having some effects on some measurable quantities, (slight increase of average temperature, slight increase of sea level, slight decrease of northern, but not southern, sea ice,..)

Water from the melting ice makes the oceans rise, only a fraction of an inch a year but, in the fullness of time, enough to let the currents increase their flow over the northern sill, bringing ever more warm water into the gelid Arctic.

If we do that, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 320 to 390 parts per million since 1850 is only about half as much (22 %) as the cherry - picking IPCC has told us, based solely on ice - core data....

Not only that, but the sea ice insulates the atmosphere from the ocean, and without it heat fluxes from the ocean to the atmosphere increase — all of which assists in the melting of the permafrost.

The interesting result is that not only the standard deviation (at 370 k km ^ 2) is significantly better than the 500 k km ^ 2 or so that would be achieved for a simple linear trend, but also this method explains a large part of the increase in September ice extent during the 2013 and 2014 season w.r.t. 2012 and other years.

When the ocean absorbs CO2 from the air, not only does that CO2 increase the temperature of the water, and cause more ice melt, but it also causes ocean acidification.

It does not sluff off the trees but only sticks and builds (frequent ice storms have also increased radically due to the chemical ice nucleation process.

Increased delivery of warm ocean water into the sub-ice shelf cavity may therefore cause not only thinning but also structural weakening of the ice shelf, perhaps, as a prelude to eventual collapse.»

Of the 68 papers, the results showed that a large majority 42 scientific research papers, or 62 %, predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of humans increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, 19 papers or 28 % were neutral or took no stance, and only 7 papers or about 10 % predicted that the earth was cooling or going into an ice age.

Agreed Dane — the only way ocean heat will bouce off a layer of ice is if the ice has a higher melting point than the ocean water temperature... the more they increase the ice melt temp, the greater the disaster.

Dr Curry, evidence of a warming planet (ice loss, temperature increases etc) is not evidence of cAGW, but only evidence of a warming planet.

Stranger yet, if you add a 0.1 Deg C / decade trend to the Peninsula stations, the S09 West Antarctic trend increases from 0.20 to 0.25 — with most of the increase occurring 2,500 km away from the Peninsula on the Ross Ice Shelf — the East Antarctic trend increases from 0.10 to 0.13... but the Peninsula trend only increases from 0.13 to 0.15.

government publicists claim there is only a «modestly increasing» Antarctic sea ice extents, but that description seems to depend on what your definition of «modest» is.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cyclIce Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cyclice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

How can human CO2 production continually increase and cause only some decades of Arctic sea ice to decline, while enabling other decades to increase?

From October 1 to 15, ice extent increased only 378,000 square kilometers (146,000 square miles), less than a third of the 1981 to 2010 average gain for that period.

Further, it only took one month of persistent wind conditions to slow the rate of sea ice loss, resulting in an increase in 2009 sea ice extent compared to 2007 and 2008.

Because the density of ice is about 3 times the density of snow, if researchers incorrectly assume increased elevations are only due to snowfall and not dynamic thickening, estimates of ice mass will be greatly underestimated.

Such conditions will not only hasten melting of ice formed the previous winter but, independently of that process, will also increase the apparent area of open water by rafting and compacting small, isolated ice floes.

Because if their hypothesis were merely that an increase in CO2 would cause only a negligible rise in temperature, which is so very tiny that it can not be detected from the background noise, or from the planet's natural emergence from the last Ice Age, then no one would pay any attention to them at all, and the $ Billions in annual grant money to study the «problem» would quickly evaporate.

Lets hope the factor is small because if temperature starts going the other way it is an increasing (cos latitude) factor and is limited only by ice reaching the equator.

and 2) Comiso published a subsequent paper (along with Fumihiko Nishio) in 2008 that added only one additional year to the IPCC analysis (i.e. through 2006 instead of 2005), and once again found a statistically significant increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, with a value very similar to the value reported in the old TAR, that is:

Based on the velocity map, it is the Zachariae that is likely the only of this group that would be comparable to a bank that is too big to fail as its increased velocity band extends well into the ice sheet.

After several 23,000 - year cycles the Earth's crust sagged so far that the ice's surface was at a low enough altitude to melt in summer — but only when orbital conditions brought increased sunlight in northern latitudes.

This study finds that global warming of 0.6 ºC in the past 30 years has been driven mainly by increasing greenhouse gases and only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice.

This study finds that global warming of 0.6 °C in the past 30 years has been driven mainly by increasing greenhouse gases, and only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice.

But for the current rise, where the end is not in sight, the ice cores only follow the increase with a lag which depends of the resolution.

The Law Dome ice cores have an overlap of ~ 20 years with the atmosphere and reflect the atmospheric CO2 levels within + / - 1.2 ppmv for the same average gas age: The averaging makes that the ice core record lags the changes in the atmosphere and that fast peaks are suppressed, but for the Law Dome ice cores, any peak of 20 ppmv happening over only one year should be just detected or a 10 - year sustained 2 ppmv increase...

Hansen (and all GCM's) include (only) positive feedback factors and Hansen assumes that near 50 % of the increase / decrease over the ice ages is from the influence of GHGs.

The fact that the sea ice, for example, has been disappearing so dramatically in recent decades tells us that the climate system is disrupted, and the only explanation is the extra heat trapped by the rapid increase in greenhouse gases caused mostly by our burning fossil fuels.