Sentences with phrase «magnitude of the changes observed»

It seems unlikely that 60 min of elevated skin temperature and perspiration would be long enough for microbial growth dynamics to effect the magnitude of changes observed, given that bacterial doubling times generally exceed 20 min even in optimal conditions.

The pace and magnitude of the changes observed in this region match the expectation that Amundsen Sea embayment glaciers should be less stable than others.

Not exact matches

Attributable human - induced changes in the likelihood and magnitude of the observed extreme precipitation during Hurricane Harvey.

A review of the fossil record, they said, shows that rarity of previously abundant organisms is the only factor tied with certainty to the widespread ecological change observed across extinction boundaries, and because of this, the magnitude and extent of rarity may provide the best comparison of the current biotic crisis to those of the past.

This model can account well for the observed magnitudes of the high transition temperatures in these materials and implies a gap that does not change sign, can be substantially anisotropic, and has the same symmetry as the crystal.

Small drifts in baseline were observed over the course of the experiments, but these changes had little effect on the interpretation of the data because response magnitude was proportional to baseline activity.

These provide the range of fingerprint magnitudes (e.g., for the combined temperature response to different aerosol forcings) that are consistent with observed climate change, and can therefore be used to infer the likely range of forcing that is consistent with the observed record.

Of these, several have reported post-treatment reductions in total cholesterol 12, 53, triglyceride 12, 53 and increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.20 In studies using normotensive rats, three to six months of IER has been observed to lower blood pressure 16 - 19 and heart rate 16, 17, 19, with the magnitude of the change comparable to CER (40 % ER / day) rats.19 In accordance with these findings areimprovements in aortic endothelium - dependent and heart rate variability (a marker of sympatho - vagal balance) in IER - fed rats.Of these, several have reported post-treatment reductions in total cholesterol 12, 53, triglyceride 12, 53 and increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.20 In studies using normotensive rats, three to six months of IER has been observed to lower blood pressure 16 - 19 and heart rate 16, 17, 19, with the magnitude of the change comparable to CER (40 % ER / day) rats.19 In accordance with these findings areimprovements in aortic endothelium - dependent and heart rate variability (a marker of sympatho - vagal balance) in IER - fed rats.of IER has been observed to lower blood pressure 16 - 19 and heart rate 16, 17, 19, with the magnitude of the change comparable to CER (40 % ER / day) rats.19 In accordance with these findings areimprovements in aortic endothelium - dependent and heart rate variability (a marker of sympatho - vagal balance) in IER - fed rats.of the change comparable to CER (40 % ER / day) rats.19 In accordance with these findings areimprovements in aortic endothelium - dependent and heart rate variability (a marker of sympatho - vagal balance) in IER - fed rats.of sympatho - vagal balance) in IER - fed rats.72

Rather, one would want to evaluate whether there is evidence of changes in dust of significant magnitude to account for the observed glacier variations.

The problem here is that estimates of changes in sea surface temperature and the depth of the warm mixed layer might be very unreliable, since the general behavior of the Atlantic circulation is only now being directly observed — and the most recent findings are that flow rates vary over a whole order of magnitude:

Marine biogeochemists and biological oceanographers have a good understanding of the processes which control phytoplankton biomass, such that a decrease in global phytoplankton biomass of the magnitude described by Boyce et al. can not be explained by other physical, chemical, and biological changes which have been observed.

Therefore, in order to come up with an alternative explanation, one has to simultaneously show why GHGs are not causing the warming they would be expected to based on physical principles, and at the same time come up with a natural source of temperature change that can match the magnitude and patterns of the observed change.

Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale - up of key control measures.

«The speed and magnitude of the observed change is far greater than we expected,» said Prof. Bruce Forbes of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland, corresponding author of the paper.

Another way of asking the same question is: If there had been a rapid change in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in the past similar in magnitude and brevity as what we now observe, would we be able to detect it?

The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land - based water storage, which is relatively poorly known.

Attribution analyses normally directly account for errors in the magnitude of the model's pattern of response to different forcings by the inclusion of factors that scale the model responses up or down to best match observed climate changes.

So if there were, say, a decadal - scale 1 % -2 % reduction in cloud cover that allowed more SW radiation to penetrate into the ocean (as has been observed since the 1980s), do you think this would have an impact of greater magnitude on the heat in the oceans than a change of, say, +10 ppm (0.00001) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration?

By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.

I follow most of what you're saying, but does the change in sulfate concentration account for the observed magnitude of mid-century cooling?

And all too often, GCMs disagree with each other on the magnitude (substantially) and / or sign of change of these aspects, and / or conflict with what becomes the observed reality.

Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.

The magnitude of observed declines in snowpack in the Southwest, in the range of 20 %, is similar to the increases in runoff associated with thinning from this study, suggesting that accelerated thinning may at least offset or ameliorate runoff losses due to climate change.

Observed changes in short term precipitation intensity from previous research and the anticipated changes in flood frequency and magnitude expected due to enhanced greenhouse forcing are not generally evident at this time over large portions of the United States for several different measures of flood flows.

The observed changes in mid-ocean seismic activity are orders of magnitude too large and too fast for all of the current geological mechanisms to explain.

With regard to adaptation, the pace and magnitude of observed and projected changes emphasize the need to be prepared for a wide variety and intensity of impacts.

Previous modeling studies predict changes of similar magnitude for a 3 ° temperature increase, suggesting that the observed sensitivity is higher than previously expected (6)».

We are beginning to sound like a broken record here, but again, it is impossible to present reliable future projections for precipitations changes across the U.S. (seasonal or annual) from a collection of climate models which largely can not even get the sign (much less the magnitude) of the observed changes correct.

It is then critical to consider whether the observed and expected dramatic declines in Arctic sea ice are causing fundamental changes in sensible heat and evaporation fluxes and influencing the magnitude and form of Arctic amplification.

These changes alone are not sufficient to cause the observed magnitude of change in temperature, nor to act on the whole Earth.

My point is that looking at a table of absolute temperatures (or expanding the y axis in a graph to show these) can be more intuitive and in some instances express better the relative magnitude of the observed changes.

Results: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.

The warming proponents have falsely assumed that the observed changes are human induced when in fact they are the result of natural changes an order of magnitude or two greater.

Thus your assertion is moot because regardless of whether sunspot counts in the more distant past are accurate we know for a fact there was a recent transition of large magnitude so we will still be able to observe what happens when sunspot count changes radically.

The recent warming in the Arctic anyway is not direct from regional CO2, as the observed warming needs a heat / radiation unbalance which is an order of magnitude larger than the direct change in radiation caused by CO2 increases...

The sun has not changed enough, especially in the last 3 decades, to account for the rapidity and magnitude of the observed global climate change.

However, it is pretty much impossible, because it is equivalent to the latent heat released when so much water vapor gets condensed, that it would raise global sea level by 37 mm, a swing almost an order of magnitude larger than observed in annual sea level changes.

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

A large effect magnitude been observed for changes in the score of the Routine of HLPCQ, and the total score of HLPCQ.