Sentences with phrase «increases with warming when»

In JULES, on the other hand, residence time declines with warming when CO2 also increases, yet increases with warming when CO2 is fixed.

Not exact matches

The list of artists who have unintentionally and unwillingly been associated with the Donald Trump campaign increased when Trump used Adele's Rolling in the Deep during a rally as his «warm - up music.»

Hoerling said the study did not prove that the high - pressure ridge was exceptional when compared with pressure increases taking place across the globe as the planet warms.

So when wind pulls warm water up from down deep, the temperature difference experienced at the interface of the water and ice can effectively submerse the glacier in a hot bath, with some areas experiencing more than a 10-fold increase in melt rate.

The clearest impact of warming on drought is when higher temperatures cause more evaporation and increase water demand, as has happened with this drought.

«The other carbon dioxide problem», «the evil twin of global warming», or part of a «deadly trio», together with increasing temperatures and loss of oxygen: Many names have been coined to describe the problem of ocean acidification — a change in the ocean chemistry that occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere dissolves in seawater.

For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night.

At the same time, increasing depth and duration of drought, along with warmer temperatures enabling the spread of pine beetles has increased the flammability of this forest region — http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1293.html http://www.vancouversun.com/fires+through+tinder+pine+beetle+killed+forests/10047293/story.html Can climate models give different TCR and ECS with different timing / extent of when or how much boreal forest burns, and how the soot generated alters the date of an ice free Arctic Ocean or the rate of Greenland ice melt and its influence on long term dynamics of the AMOC transport of heat?

While their function in the pre-training preparation pales in comparison to a well - rounded dynamic warm - up routine, static stretches work amazingly well for reducing muscle soreness, maintaining optimal body alignment and increasing the ability to build muscle when performed during the post-workout window, especially when paired with soft tissue work on the same body areas.

When doing these 5 sets with 5 reps the first 2 sets should be warm - up sets progressively increasing the weight with the same intervals.

Some people like to use a warm sock filled with rice to increase the blood flow to the ear but I find it cumbersome and annoying to have to use one more item when testing a cat.

When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2 °C and 3.5 °C, with greater increases at high latitudes.

The first Hansen Op - Ed quote Tom Scharf objects to begins «To the contrary...» so presumably Tom Scharf is more at ease with what is being disavowed by Hansen when he said ``... it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather... (nor) to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change.»

Last I saw from NOAA was global warming decreasing numbers but increasing intensities: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519134306.htm However the methods and equipment for measuring occurences and intensity have improved so much that we're not exactly comparing apples to apples when we calibrate today's numbers with 70 years ago to quantify a correlation, it's effect, and provide a projection.

I would argue that if we use a simple radiative model with a variety of assumptions, no upper atmosphere cooling but only warming will occur with increased CO2 (see # 333), based on the radiative transfer equations and the Second Law of thermodynamics, but when other complexities are introduced, this might change.

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).

We can divide the atmosphere into a lower part (LP), which includes the surface and is the source of IR, and an upper part (UP), which we are asked to assume will cool when CO2 increases, in conjunction with the expected warming of LP from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The idea of an evaporation thermostat was proposed in the 1970's by Newell, and was based on erroneous reasoning confusing correlation with causation; when one does the physics, one finds that evaporation increases the air - sea coupling, but can't prevent a warming if the atmosphere itself warms.

Such is the case for the explanation — popular with the press when it was first proposed — that an increase in aerosol emissions, particularly from China, was acting to help offset the warming influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

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.

So when you transport enormous amounts of warm tropical waters to the poles for about 400,000 years, you end up with ice ages, which after a while may shut down the MOC again, further increasing the polar cooling, as for instance happened at the Younger Dryas.

It is true that there has been no «statistically significant» warming in the last 16 (or 15 years) only because when you deal with such short data sets the signal to noise ratio decreases, meaning that the 95 % confidence level also increases.

When we associate years with warming, sea level, and city commitments, we are referencing the 21st century years when the commitments are established through cumulative emissions, not the years farther in the future when the commitments are realized through sustained temperature increases and When we associate years with warming, sea level, and city commitments, we are referencing the 21st century years when the commitments are established through cumulative emissions, not the years farther in the future when the commitments are realized through sustained temperature increases and when the commitments are established through cumulative emissions, not the years farther in the future when the commitments are realized through sustained temperature increases and when the commitments are realized through sustained temperature increases and SLR.

Indeed, most of the improvements in our climate monitoring abilities occurred after the public interest in «global warming» began in the late 1980s, i.e., when governments began increasing funding for climate research with multi-billion dollar research programmes such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

A good point as arctic regions that are hit with warmer water streams will prevent sea ice extent while those with colder ones can massivly increase in volume when the air is cold enough though no growth would be visible from the top down view.

Of course, logic and ethics had no chance when you were faced with defending it, since the Hockey Stick graph (the only one reproduced multiple times in color in any IPCC summary) was the primary basis for convincing the Media and Policy Makers that immediate action was needed to offset unprecedented warming, obviously caused by unprecedented increase in CO2.

When the earth's temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines.

In times when the oceans are warming, there could be several factors that influence this, each with varying contributions based on natural and / or anthropogenic variability: 1) Greater solar output 2) Less aerosols in the atmosphere 3) Less cloudiness (especially of a certain type) 4) Increased greenhouse gases

This period, known as the «last deglaciation,» included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~ 14.7 — 14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4 — 5 °C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12 — 22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century](Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)-RRB-[Deschamps et al., 2012].»

The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.

But when converted to actual temperature warming, that number, with all those zeros, equates to about a total of +0.06 °C to +0.07 °C increase since 1955.

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).

When the intensity of ultraviolet light from the sun increases, temperature rises in this ozone rich air and weakens the downdraft, lowers the surface pressure and with it the strength of the trade winds that blow across the ocean to the low pressure zones that form over the warm waters that accumulate in the west.

The models are in better agreement when projecting changes in hurricane precipitation — almost all existing studies project greater rainfall rates in hurricanes in a warmer climate, with projected increases of about 20 % averaged near the center of hurricanes.

He had already been warned on this thread that when I had earlier answered a legitimate question from a commenter far more polite and sensible than he, I had replied with a straightforward account of how Professor Lindzen, in a talk that he had given under my chairmanship at the Houses of Parliament, had calculated that if the increase in evaporation from the Earth's surface with warming was thrice that which the models predicted then climate sensitivity was one - third of that which the models predicted.

When I solve for ∆ T2, I come up with 25.7 °C / doubling to get 6 deg C warming with the current rate of increase of CO2 increase by 2050.

But when you look at the very cold regions where there is almost no water in the atmosphere to begin with, or the desert regions, you do not in fact see any observable evidence that the air is any warmer than it was in the past with respect to CO2 increases.

You do not disagree with my point but now throw in changes in atmospheric CO2 as evidence that the current rate of warming must have been greater than that occurring during some 50 + year period of the MWP, when there was no such increase in human GHGs..

When SW radiation from the Sun interacts with matter (the Earth, for example) it imparts energy to the receiving molecules which can increase the thermal energy of the matter — it fills the «energy gap» required to reach the next energy level (warm).

Powerful ocean heat pulses of the kind we observe now, when combined with an extraordinary human greenhouse gas heat forcing, also increases the likelihood of another record warm year.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

This figure indicates 3 things: (1) the time lag between emitting greenhouse gases and when we see the principle effect is about 30 years, due mostly to the time required to heat the oceans, (2) the rate of temperature increase predicted by a climate sensitivity of 3 °C tracks well with the observed rate of temperature increase, and (3) we have already locked in more than 1.5 °C warming.

As we now that there has been a period of 18 years with no surface warming when atmospheric CO2 was increasing for each and every year we know that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC general circulation model calculated warming due to CO2 is orders of magnitude too high.

When asked to explain what he meant he said well they all showed global warming with increased CO2.

The fact that the oceans — and not the land — were so warm last year should deeply worry us... There's evidence the Earth's oceans are undergoing never - before - seen change... When you couple 2014's record - setting oceans with our ever - increasing greenhouse gas emissions, it portends an ominous surge of heat globally — on both land and in the oceans — for years to come.

Basic theory, climate model simulations and empirical evidence all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapour, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total annual precipitation is reduced slightly, and with prospects for even stronger events when the overall precipitation amounts increase.

The histogram showed that when temperature started increasing from cold to warm it tended to accelerate, which agrees with that sensitivity.

He did not say just when the warming had stopped, but his reason for believing that Earth is cooling was decreasing Solar magnetic activity, which he noted he and his colleagues had been watching «with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.»

She will speak with advancing ice extent as this warm periods ends as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods ended when sea level dropped and ice extent increawarm periods ends as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods ended when sea level dropped and ice extent increaWarm Periods ended when sea level dropped and ice extent increased.

but yet when 390ppm of CO2 increased the temperature and we get even more (feedback) H2O airborne ALL of this is a feedback causing warming, totally ignoring that any of the original 20,000 ppm of water vapor just might have interacted with a photon to cause some of the warming?