It's not
just global air temperatures that are heating up.
Not exact matches
For a long time now climatologists have been tracking the
global average
air temperature as a measure of planetary climate variability and trends, even though this metric reflects
just a tiny fraction of Earth's net energy or heat content.
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).
I also show that
global air temperature projections are
just linear extrapolations of GHG forcing (any forcing, really).
The
global temperature records use a blend of
air and sea - surface
temperatures, while
global average
temperatures from climate models typically use
just air temperatures.
They say that
just because the
global air temperature continued to rise whilst the activity of the sun was coming down from a lengthy historic peak then there can have been no significant contribution from solar input.
The
global warming signal itself is a multidecadal feature of the climate, but
just like the seasonal example above, it has been possible at times to take one period of one
temperature record - surface
air temperatures in most cases - and do a «January - February» job with it, thereby making the claim that
temperatures are flatlining or even cooling.
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 cycles.
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).
The researchers discovered a
temperature increase of
just 1 degree Celsius in near - surface
air temperatures in the tropics leads to an average annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent to one - third of the annual
global emissions from combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation combined.
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere,
just as they did in the 20th century, but
global average surface
air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases.
I have to say that it would be much wiser to
just say we don't have a good number on the OLWR and carry on with our analysis of total
global heat change and its relationship to average
global near - surface
air temperature.
So if 1 % of the heat from
global warming is manifested in
air temperatures, and 93 % in manifested in ocean
temperature changes according to the IPCC, why do you think it is up to «tom0mason» to «prove» that the oceans are the control knob, since he is
just reaffirming what even the IPCC already effectively says?
The
air temperature, by increasing itself, is hoping to panic us into thinking
global warming is real,
just like the old dead bastards who «died» from heatstress.