Sentences with phrase «known atmospheric change»

You argue for leaving a known atmospheric change with known impacts entirely out of climate science

Not exact matches

No one knows for sure why the currents slowed, but Marcus and his colleagues note that it happened in lockstep with atmospheric changes.

«We now have an independent measurement of these emission sources that does not rely on what was known or thought known,» said Chris McLinden, an atmospheric scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada in Toronto and lead author of the study published this week in Nature Geosciences.

«I knew just from basic physics that there would be a point at which heat and humidity would become intolerable, and it didn't seem that anyone had looked at that from a climate change perspective,» says Steven Sherwood, an atmospheric scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

Low energy electrons are ubiquitous and are known to play important role in variety of phenomena relevant to astrochemistry (where they participate in synthesis of new molecules), in radiation biology (where they cause chemical changes in living cell, plasma chemistry), atmospheric chemistry, radioactive waste management and nanolithography — to name but a few.

Rodney Weber, an atmospheric scientist, is being questioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R - Texas), who wants to know why Weber's climate - change - related research deserved a federal grant in 2012.

Bryophytes are one such group of plants known to be sensitive to environmental changes, in particular to atmospheric conditions.

As for the paper's conclusion that removing atmospheric carbon is necessary in order to achieve the 2 ˚C target, climate scientist Richard Moss of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, says that's a nearly impossible goal «with what we know about today.»

Dr Alison Cook, who led the work at Swansea University, says: «Scientists know that ocean warming is affecting large glaciers elsewhere on the continent, but thought that atmospheric temperatures were the primary cause of all glacier changes on the Peninsula.

If we want to know why SST is changing at observed rates (long term), or why it takes so long for changes in atmospheric dynamics to register fully in the ocean, OHC is critical, but if we simply want to quantify the change, the direct measurements are more appropriate.

The effects on atmospheric carbon levels from landuse changes are highly uncertain, as I'm sure Ruddiman knows.

The EPA report is concerned with the impacts that climate change can have on atmospheric chemistry, and in particular the summertime peaks in urban ground - level ozone which are a well - known and serious health hazard.

«We know rather little about how much methane comes from different sources and how these have been changing in response to industrial and agricultural activities or because of climate events like droughts,» says Hinrich Schaefer, an atmospheric scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand, who collaborates with Petrenko.

The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth - Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Trying to infer changes in atmospheric circulation from that data would be a very tricky business — but until know, that's what oceanographers have been stuck with — and the system could use a lot of expansion.

If we knew ocean heat uptake as well as we know atmospheric temperature change, then we could pin down fairly well the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which would give us a fair indication of how much warming is «in the pipeline» given current greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, if the loss of Arctic Sea ice has significantly changed global atmospheric circulation patterns, then we are dealing with a different system that has only been in existence since 2007, and we do not know how often to expect crop failures.

Global Climate Change and Human Activity From RealClimate, a «simpler» explanation on how we know «that not only part of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activities, but all of it.»

Since El Nino also has an important impact on the Asian Summer Monsoon in particular, its hard to know precisely what large - scale changes in atmospheric circulation are due to the radiative forcing of the eruption itself, and the secondary response to that eruption of ENSO.

The well - known impact of El Niño on reducing Atlantic hurricane activity is in fact due to increased shear from the associated atmospheric circulation changes.

Now, I think it was in 1956 that atmospheric physicist and sometimes - weapons designer Gilbert Plass (who needed to know about IR to fire heat - seeking missiles up the tailpipes of jet fighter at high altitude) noted that CO2 in the upper troposphere could block the escape of IR to space: The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change, Gilbert Plass (1955)(abstract) In the full paper, available at the above link, Plass spells out the previous notion which his research overturned:

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

The rise of CO2 from 270ppm to now over 400ppm, the extent of equatorial and sub tropical deforestation, the soot deposits on the polar ice caps, the increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a corresponding increase in ocean temps and changes in ocean currents, the extreme ice albedo currently happening in the arctic etc, etc are all conspiring in tandem to alter the climate as we know it.

1) It seems to me that the key mechanism for any impact must be the changes that increased arctic ocean temperatures will impose on the atmospheric circulation feature known as the Polar Cell, and via this on the Ferrel cell which sits over the mid latitudes.

(3) Subordinate to solar activity alone, atmospheric water vapor / cloud formation and movement is the largest known variable that influences temperature changes in the atmosphere of the earth, and the earth's oceans.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

You refuse to accept that ocean and atmospheric changes radiative flux no matter how often it is shown to you.

Scientists say the record drought is due in part to the expansion of the Hadley Cell — the atmospheric regions on both sides of the equator that circulates warm tropical air poleward — which is known climate change signal.

As we know dust both blocks sunlight (cooling the Earth) and fertilizing the oceanic biotica (sequestrating atmospheric CO2) I suggest that Dust causes the changes in the temperature and CO2 recorded in the ice cores.

As far as we know, the «airborne fraction» (percentage of emitted CO2 remaining atmospheric) has not been changing greatly over the past century, and if any change is occurring, the fraction is perhaps increasing very slightly due to greater saturation of the oceanic sink.

Again (don't tell Santer) it's the Sun stupid: changes in UV light has a direct influence on the stratosphere due to more Ozone and this results in greater warming of the upper stratosphere and swirling, wind - driving, convective atmospheric vortices that are known as weather.

ATMOSPHERIC and other climate - change scientists need to meet regularly to discuss and debate what is known and what remains to be discovered about climate change.

-- Despite CO2's known greenhouse properties, changes in atmospheric CO2 lag behind changes in temperature on all observed time - scales.

You are right that many parts of the carbon cycle are hardly known, but even the largest cycle, the seasons, doesn't change the atmospheric CO2 levels with more than 6 ppmv for 1 °C change.

2) we know the change in atmospheric conc.

Don't know exactly what this tells us except that there may be a natural temperature correlation with atmospheric CO2 change, as Prof. Salby has suggested.

The Earth's response to changes in atmospheric CO2 is studied using what are known as global climate models (GCMs), which run on supercomputers.

The variability of atmospheric ionization rates due to GCR changes can be considered relatively well quantified (Bazilevskaya et al., 2008), whereas resulting changes in aerosol nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008; Kazil et al., 2008).

Because of the buffering, we do not know how much, or even if, the calcium carbonation saturation state will change with a change in atmospheric CO2.

Climate Change Deniers, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, refers to individuals or groups who disagree with the global scientific consensus that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Dessler finds that the short - term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean - which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming / cooling cycles.

«Whilst there are certainly other potential drivers of changes in the climate we know that over the last century we have greatly increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and, through detection and attribution analyses, we know that the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases have driven the rise in global temperature,» King said.

One important feature that plays a role in these variations is the periodic change of atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the tropical Pacific region, collectively known as El Niño — Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variation»

... and kind of started a long conversation about that organized effort that I had discovered in my atmospheric science history research... 2:40 point:... then, probably 2006... she discovered the same folks who had been involved in kind of organizing climate change denial in the Unites States had also been involved in the tobacco lobby... and then we knew we had a story to tell.

Climate scientists know that the planet is warming, and dangerously, as a consequence of ever higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere thanks to changes humans have made to the planet's atmospheric chemistry — and they know it can get worse.

The statement which was made regarding atmospheric cooling, is from NASA, and not Columbia University: «To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

So there is another reason to believe that while humans certainly ARE adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it isn't the primary component (we already know it isn't the primary component because the atmosphere is accumulating CO2 at a much faster rate than humans add each year) because while human emissions have been rising nearly exponentially, atmospheric CO2 has been rising linearly and that rate of rise did not change when global human CO2 emissions fell in absolute terms (tons of CO2 emitted to atmosphere fell in 2009, rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 unchanged).

For the authors of the paper to assess the spectral results against theory they needed to know the atmospheric profile of temperature and humidity, as well as changes in the well - studied trace gases like CO2 and methane.

However, it is known from estimates of past climate changes and from atmospheric physics - based models that Earth's climate is more sensitive than that.

This comment has already gotten too long, but I'd like to point out that based on what we know so far, it looks very much as if Salby is making the same mistake that McLean made (in attributing the temperature rise to ENSO) and, even more similarly, that Mr Lon Hocker made in a post at WUWT in which he made virtually the identical argument to this one (temperature changes explain the atmospheric CO2 trend).