Sentences with phrase «measured warming of the oceans»

We have directly measured warming of the oceans, for example, where about 90 percent of the human - caused heat has gone.

Not exact matches

«The beauty of this study is that easily acquired measures of reef complexity and depth provide a means of predicting long term consequences of ocean warming events,» Dr Wilson says.

Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.

Researchers can measure annual changes in how the melt rate occurs, for example, or the effects of a single pulse of warm deep - ocean water.

Velicogna and her colleagues also measured a dramatic loss of Greenland ice, as much as 38 cubic miles per year between 2002 and 2005 — even more troubling, given that an influx of fresh melt water into the salty North Atlantic could in theory shut off the system of ocean currents that keep Europe relatively warm.

WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of Narragansett Bay and we measure the change in PH. It's serious for us, Senator.

This new measure of ocean warming is also more robust to some sources of error in the ocean observing system.

We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans.

Now scientists have measured a rapid recent expansion of desert - like barrenness in the subtropical oceans --- in places where surface waters have also been steadily warming.

Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of uncertainty for the predicted change in Ts), transfer of heat to the deeper ocean (where changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..

While such a «missing heat» explanation for a lack of recent warming [i.e., Trenberth's argument that just can not find it yet] is theoretically possible, I find it rather unsatisfying basing an unwavering belief in eventual catastrophic global warming on a deep - ocean mechanism so weak we can't even measure it [i.e., the coldest deep ocean waters are actually warmer than they should be by thousandths of a degree]...

The «warming» of the troposphere as measured by sensible heat is only one very small part of the energy in the overall climate system, and the part with the very lowest thermal inertia and very sensitive to very small changes in ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux such as we see in the ENSO cycle.

Warmer oceans increase d13C of the atmosphere (measured!)

This warming can be seen in measurements of troposphere temperatures measured by weather balloons and satellites, in measurements of ocean heat content, sea surface temperature (measured in situ and by satellites), air temperatures over the ocean, air temperature over land.

Most interesting is that the about monthly variations correlate with the lunar phases (peak on full moon) The Helsinki Background measurements 1935 The first background measurements in history; sampling data in vertical profile every 50 - 100m up to 1,5 km; 364 ppm underthe clouds and above Haldane measurements at the Scottish coast 370 ppmCO2 in winds from the sea; 355 ppm in air from the land Wattenberg measurements in the southern Atlantic ocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic oceans and parts of the northern; measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic oceans and parts of the northern; measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avOcean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly average

Coby, if the earth is warming as a result of increased periodic solar activity (or some other more complex reason) as suggested by the long term cycles mentioned above measured before man was on earth or industrialized, is it posssible that the observed increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are simply coming from warmer oceans, since liquids can not hold as much gas at a higher temperature than they can at lower temperature?

Callendar in the 1930's (AGW a factor in early 20th warming), Plass (radiation balance) and Revelle (oceans won't absorb all anthropogenic CO2) in the 1950's, Keeling measuring CO2 in the 1960's, Manabe and others in the 1970's modelling GHG effects, etc - all contributed to the body of evidence.

There is some correlation between changes in temperature due to global warming in different parts of the ocean, so there might be some reduction below 0.1 C, but how much and how has it been measured?

The same thing about measuring two cats and finding the same weight can be said of recent warming caused by rise in CO2 and rise of CO2 happening to be coincident with warming caused by a natural ocean cycle (AMDO).

Together, these effects explain a measured decline in the upper ocean warming of 0.02 degrees Celsius since 2003, say climate researchers of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute KNMI.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

The measure of «climate» sensitivity by looking at only tropospheric temperature sensitivity might need to be examined a bit, especially, if turned out to be the case (as some research seems to indicate) that CO2 at 400 ppm induces a permanent La Niña state in the Pacific, while still allowing for rapid warming in other parts of the ocean and climate system.

We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans.

This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global warming on the planet, in measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase.

According to the paper, «arguably, ocean heat content — from the surface to the seafloor — might be a more appropriate measure of how much our planet is warming.»

Perhaps we can move on from your (and my) ignorance of ocean thermal dynamics onto the more substantive and controversial area of whether and how much of the measured warming is due to CO2.

The reason scientists use dozens of satellites, and thousands of measuring stations and ocean floats and balloons and aircraft and other such measuring operations, over many decades, is so they can say more than a post-Ice Age Cro - Magnon man — «We are in a warming period».

With a dominant internal component having the structure of the observed warming, and with radiative restoring strong enough to keep the forced component small, how can one keep the very strong radiative restoring from producing heat loss from the oceans totally inconsistent with any measures of changes in oceanic heat content?

Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.

The rate of warming as measured by ocean heat content changes over the last 4 years shows that we have DOUBLED the top - of - atmosphere energy imbalance from 0.6 watts per meter squared to 1.1 watts per meter squared in the last 7 years.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

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).

After that you claimed «HOW you will measure the immeasurable», and I pointed out that the link I already provided was measuring the temperature of the oceans and finding a warming trend.

This time period is too short to signify a change in the warming trend, as climate trends are measured over periods of decades, not years.12, 29,30,31,32 Such decade - long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900 - 1910 and 1940 - 1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade - long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise.33 Nonetheless, satellite and ocean observations indicate that the Earth - atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.34

However, more recent research modelling the impacts of using microbubbles to address global warming found that the technique would not affect ocean primary productivity, a measure of the activity of primary producers.

Answer: if warming releases CO2 from the ocean, whether coming out of an ice age or when initiated by ACO2, it upsets IPCC's model that the bulge in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO is all due to man.

Gates tries to fog up the issue by bringing in suspected warming of the ocean, which has really only been measured since around 2003, since ARGO came on line.

Unfortunately using global average surface air temperatures as a measure of total warming ignores the fact that most of the heat (more than 93 %) goes into our oceans, which continue to warm without any sign of a pause, as you can see below.

Sea levels are rising (ask the Mayor of Miami who has spent tax monies to raise road levels), we've had 15 of the hottest years eve measured, more precipitation is coming down in heavy doses (think Houston), we're seeing more floods and drought than ever before (consistent with predictions), the oceans are measuring warmer, lake ice in North America is thawing sooner (where it happens in northern states and Canada), most glaciers are shrinking, early spring snowpacks out west have declined since the 1950's, growing seasons are longer throughout the plains, bird wintering ranges have moved north, leaf and bloom dates recorded by Thoreau in Walden have shifted in that area, insect populations that used to have one egg - larva - adult cycle in the summer now have two, the list goes on and on.

I do think, however, that it is significant (short term, not a firm trend) that CO2, as measured at MLO, has been increasing at a smaller rate than in previous years despite the fact that overall anthropogenic CO2 output is not decreasing and, furthermore, that the short term trend of the absolute increase is also down which indicates a greater rate of absorption of CO2 than in previous years — which to me would indicate an ongoing cooling of the oceans as per the theory that a cooling ocean absorbs more CO2 while a warming ocean releases more CO2.

For example, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured... hundredths of a degree (not so impressive).

* There is no such thing as a meaningful «Earth» temperature, as some regions are cooling, some are warming, the depths of the ocean have different levels of heat content that can not be uniformly measured against a mean, etc..

except we've measured the deep ocean temperatures and found that those waters are holding the increased warming during one of the natural warming / cooling cycles.

NASA's «GISS» temp uses land and ocean - based thermometers which measure «different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we «homogenise» our data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].»

It is also when we have increasingly good measures of atmospheric temperature, ocean heat content, and the various agents that warm and cool the climate.

But then again, there is a set of observations showing that if you add some extra energy in the form of DLR, the part of the ocean that we are able to measure by its IR emission (the skin) warms up a little.

As explained in the press release, the scientists began with the measure of sea level rise between 2005 and 2013, then deducted the amount of rise due to meltwater (e.g., melting ice sheets and loss of glacier mass worldwide) and then the amount of rise due to the expansion of water from the warming in the upper portion of the world's oceans (which scientists have good data on).

When I started to look at the global warming issue my initial inclination was to look at Ocean data, since it's such a huge heat sink, relatively constant backscatter, and potentially the source one would want to measure with as much accuracy as possible., Also, Seemed to me like it was a «natural» filter of noisy data.

However, we noted at the time that Dr. Pielke was only considering the heating of the upper 700 meter ocean layer, which is also an incomplete measure of global warming.

What we have now is that all measures of what is happening - ocean heat, sea level, ice sheet melt, land temperatures and atmospheric temperatures are all pointing to warming.