Sentences with phrase «increased atmospheric heat»

Dennie: I am slowly coming to the realization that the planet is heating up not only from greenhouse gasses and aerosol particulates holding in heat, but that the major cause of the increased atmospheric heat is due to microwave technology and the exponential increase in its saturation of the entire global atmosphere.

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.»

Increased atmospheric heat obviously makes temperatures warmer, which leaves less time for ice to form and solidify and create new layers on glaciers and ice sheets.

The first is that our planet's oceans act as a massive watery heat - sink, and currently absorb more than 90 percent of increased atmospheric heat that are associated with human activity.

Not exact matches

That said, the efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine is rather low; from time to time, inefficiency causes the disparity between the warm source and the cold sink to increase.

Averaged over the entire globe, it's one - fourth as large as the heating caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the same period.

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.

As a result of atmospheric patterns that both warmed the air and reduced cloud cover as well as increased residual heat in newly exposed ocean waters, such melting helped open the fabled Northwest Passage for the first time [see photo] this summer and presaged tough times for polar bears and other Arctic animals that rely on sea ice to survive, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Previous studies have hypothesized that the North Pacific atmospheric ridge is caused by increased ocean surface temperatures and movement of heat in the tropical Pacific.

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.

But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat - trapping greenhouse gases.

It will also increase vital heat transfer about the planet too, helping resist atmospheric collapse likely on the permanently cold night side of any synchronous planet.

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.

Last year's scorching summer and record heat wave in Australia were attributed in part to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases from to human activities.

So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

As atmospheric temperatures increase, therefore, heat transfer into the oceans increases as the system tends towards a new equilibrium temperature.

OLR increases in the optically thinner bands would lead to atmospheric warming in general, but this has to be accompanied by OLR decreases somewhere, such as in optically thicker bands (and always in the band where optical thickness was added, assuming positive lapse rates everywhere as is the case in a 1 - dimensional equilibrium model with zero solar heating above the tropopause, or at least not too much solar heating in some distributions), which will tend to cause cooling of upper levels.

The haze reduced the seasonal average solar radiation absorbed by the equatorial Indian ocean by as much as 30 to 60 W m − 2 during September to November 1997, and increased the atmospheric solar heating by as much as 50 % to 100 % within the first 3 kilometers.

There was an eruption of assertions in recent days that the increasing summer retreats and thinning of Arctic Ocean sea ice might be a result not of atmospheric warming but instead all the heat from the recent discovered volcanoes peppering the Gakkel Ridge, one of the seams in the deep seabed at the top of the world.

I agree that the non-grey nature of atmospheric optical properties is important to the issue of stratospheric cooling and that an increase in a greenhouse gas like CO2 can cause stratospheric cooling even without solar heating of the stratosphere.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

Starting with zero atmospheric LW absorption, adding any small amount cools the whole atmopshere towards a skin temperature and warms the surface — tending to produce a troposphere (the forcing at any level will be positive, and thus will be positive at the tropopause; it will increase downward toward the surface if the atmosphere were not already as cold as the skin temperature, thus resulting in atmospheric cooling toward the skin temperature; cooling within the troposphere will be balanced by convective heating from the surface at equilibrium, with that surface + troposphere layer responding to tropopause - level forcing.)

In the case where there is a skin temperature that only depends on solar heating of the planet with no solar heating above the troposphere, an increase in GHG forcing would still result in upper atmospheric cooling, but this cooling would only be transient.

Of course, there are plenty of negative feedbacks as well (the increase in long wave radiation as temperatures rise or the reduction in atmospheric poleward heat flux as the equator - to - pole gradient decreases) and these (in the end) are dominant (having kept Earth's climate somewhere between boiling and freezing for about 4.5 billion years and counting).

And the other sort of latent heat, a decrease in atmospheric water vapour is also the stuff of fantasy requiring a change of 50,000 cu km when the atmosphere only contains (and only can contain) ~ 13,000 cu km without crazy temperature increases.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase the heat content of the Earth's surface — caeteris paribus.

An atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean was forced with altered implied ocean heat transports during a period of increasing trace gases.

40 % increased heating raises atmospheric temperature and humidity.

Right and that fundamental is that a doubling of CO2 will increase atmospheric resistance to heat loss by about 3.7 Wm - 2 which could produce 0.8 to 1.5 C of warming depending at the surface or surfaces chosen as references.

Still to be delivered: proof that the globe, or even that small mass of air above that small part of the Earth known as the Arctic, is being heated by increased atmospheric CO2.

I am very disappointed that you did not point out that heat emissions alone are more than sufficient to account for all the rise in atmospheric temperature as well as increase in ocean heat content that we have witnessed.

That one was little - noticed by the world's media, but now its findings may receive more attention, as an independent study by NCAR, published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, has investigated the same subject and reaches a confirming conclusion: in recent years atmospheric warming has been delayed due to increased heat transport to the deeper ocean.

Human activities, such as burning coal and oil and cutting down tropical forests, have increased atmospheric concentrations of heat - trapping gases and caused the planet to warm by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.

I'm a phsycist - and I remember being highly skeptical about AGW when I first heard about it in the late 80's - reasoning that the ocean was such an enormous heat sink that any impact on atmospheric temperatures would be dwarfed by the impact on increased heat content in the ocean.

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.

Climate change may also augment or intensify other stresses on vegetation encountered in urban environments, including increased atmospheric pollution, heat island effects, a highly variable water cycle, and frequent exposure to new pests and diseases.

The seasonal evolution of the continental heat budget for different monsoon systems (Fig. 2) shows that sensible heat flux from the land surface increases during spring and heats up the atmospheric column prior to the rainy season.

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.

The only trend I see in those 161 years is one that correlates beautifully with all estimates of increasing atmospheric CO2 since 1850 assuming that 45 % of emissions (as per CDIAC datasets) is retained in the atmosphere and, with a delay of around 15 years (possibly due to the ocean heatsink, aka Hansen's «pipeline»), heats the surface by 2.8 - 2.9 C for each doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and tempcrature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.

He says the entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario so beloved of politicians and scientists is the hypothesis that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat our planet to temperatures that would make it uninhabitable.

«because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» G and T, as they are more commonly known, make the obvious point that a (massive) increase in energy absorption will cool the pot, not heat it.

The increased effective radiating surface area of atmospheric CO2 would also act like a stepping stone for heat to leave the planet but how much cooling these effects have is anyones guess.

How hurricanes develop also depends on how the local atmosphere responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, and this atmospheric response depends critically on the cause of the change.23, 24 For example, the atmosphere responds differently when local sea surface temperatures increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, versus when sea surface temperatures increase more uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of human - caused heat - trapping gases.25, 26,27,28

It is currently suspected, for example, that the recent increase in deep - ocean heat content is driven by geothermal sources rather than atmospheric (which would solve the «paradox» that shallow ocean temperatures, over the same period, have fallen slightly).

Pekka answers this referring to the great heat capacity of the ocean, which could aborb the extra atmospheric heat due to CO2, thereby damping atmospheric increases.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

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.