Sentences with phrase «more atmospheric heat»

The team believes the ancient tropical warming caused large, rapid atmospheric changes at the equator, the intensification of the Pacific monsoon, sea - ice loss in the north Atlantic Ocean and more atmospheric heat and moisture over Greenland and much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

What I am hearing is a see - saw process of less ice more atmospheric heat, more ice less atmospheric heat in the short term.

Not exact matches

The first is that our planet's oceans act as a massive watery heat - sink, and currently absorb more than 90 percent of increased atmospheric heat that are associated with human activity.

Swirling winds blustering at more than 1,000 miles per hour, along with heat rising from the planetary interior, create the gold and yellow atmospheric bands.

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

That heated surface air then rose into the atmospheric boundary layer — the lowest level of the troposphere — doubling its height to more than 4 kilometers, and creating a thick blanket of heat.

In the North Atlantic, more heat has been retained at deep levels as a result of changes to both the ocean and atmospheric circulations, which have led to the winter atmosphere extracting less heat from the ocean.

Scientists have fingerprinted a distinctive atmospheric wave pattern high above the Northern Hemisphere that can foreshadow the emergence of summertime heat waves in the United States more than two weeks in advance.

All that extra heat in the Pacific warms the air above, leading to more rising air than normal in that region, which affects the global atmospheric circulation.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause an imbalance in Earth's heat budget: more heat is retained than expelled, which in turn generates global surface warming.

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

Polar amplification, in which temperatures at the poles rise more rapidly than temperatures at the equator (due to factors like the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation of heat from the equator to the poles), plays a major role in the rate of ice sheet retreat.

So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.

If more heat is transferred to the oceans than is accounted for by the models, that «is a negative atmospheric feedback, at least on shorter time scales.»

Higher temperature means more heat energy moved around in the atmospheric process.

Assuming all other things are equal then I would expect that a shutdown in the THC would lead to more heat transport by the atmospheric circulation as the temperature gradient would be greater.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

Polar amplification, in which temperatures at the poles rise more rapidly than temperatures at the equator (due to factors like the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation of heat from the equator to the poles), plays a major role in the rate of ice sheet retreat.

The graphs I've seen suggest a more gradual process, involving a time delay between atmospheric and oceanic heating, which would make a lot more sense.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

Moreover, the atmospheric temperature gradient is mitigated by the absorption of solar radiation within the atmosphere (also latent heat deposition), thus a more moderate temperature gradient is established within the ral atmosphere.

It seems that predictions are for less oceanic heat transport and more atmospheric (latent / moist) heat transport.

However, when heated to temperatures of over 705 °F and pressures of more than 3200 pounds per square inch (psi; atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi at sea level), water enters a unique, supercritical phase.

The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2 but the atmospheric heat arises as a result of the mass and density of the Venusian atmosphere (apparently more than 90 times that of the Earth) not just the absorption characteristics of CO2.

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?

I am very disappointed that you did not point out that heat emissions alone are more than sufficient to account for all the rise in atmospheric temperature as well as increase in ocean heat content that we have witnessed.

That one was little - noticed by the world's media, but now its findings may receive more attention, as an independent study by NCAR, published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, has investigated the same subject and reaches a confirming conclusion: in recent years atmospheric warming has been delayed due to increased heat transport to the deeper ocean.

But the known clathrate store off the US East Coast is very significant and large scale releases could result in much more widespread anoxia, acidification, and provide a substantial atmospheric heating feedback to human - caused warming.

More than 90 % of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3 % goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperature.

By the way, here is a somewhat different view of the issue, which points to a more dominant role for atmospheric rather than oceanic heat transport, courtesy Richard Seagar: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

Just as an El Niño produces a hotter Equator in the Pacific Ocean and generates more atmospheric convection, so there might be a subnormal mode that decreases heat, convection, and evaporation.

If atmospheric heat transported from lower latitudes was the major driver, more warming would be expected at greater heights.

The primary purpose of this web site is to make people more aware of the enormous energy production potential of atmospheric upward heat convection.

Stabilization - Keeping constant the atmospheric concentrations of one or more heat - trapping gas (greenhouse gas) or of a CO2 - equivalent basket of heat - trapping gases.

«You have more evaporation, more energy, more heat and that's driving more moisture from the tropics which is where these atmospheric rivers originate,» Lynn Ingram, a professor of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley, told IBT.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

«because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» G and T, as they are more commonly known, make the obvious point that a (massive) increase in energy absorption will cool the pot, not heat it.

The anomaly of the ocean heat content is more important than the atmospheric temperature anomaly for the conclusion whether global warming stopped or whether it hasn't, anyway.

If we continue emitting large amounts of CO2 while we work towards converting to 3/4 solar power and survive the heating that we inadvertently speed up by reflecting more heat into an atmosphere already overburdened with reflective - heat - capturing CO2, some day in the future when the atmospheric CO2 returns to its natural percentage of 0.0300 % instead of today's extremely high 0.03811 % the world will cool down to the levels that nature intended.

Keystone would boost that total to 2.2 million barrels per day, enrich the pit owners, and lay the groundwork for an ever - more - rapid exploitation of this dangerous pile of atmospheric heat - venom.

How hurricanes develop also depends on how the local atmosphere responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, and this atmospheric response depends critically on the cause of the change.23, 24 For example, the atmosphere responds differently when local sea surface temperatures increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, versus when sea surface temperatures increase more uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of human - caused heat - trapping gases.25, 26,27,28

Ocean heat content and sea level rise measurements may provide a more reliable answer than atmospheric measurements.

What I am not clear on is what has changed in the last few years to cause more heat to be captured by the oceans and less in the atmosphere with the resultant slower rate of surface or atmospheric warming.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

Victor argues that policymakers should instead focus on a suite of «vital signs» that are more tightly linked to carbon emissions, including atmospheric carbon - dioxide concentrations, ocean heat content, and high - latitude temperature changes.

They will go on gaining heat until the radiative balance is restored, and this happens when the sea surface temperature has increased sufficiently for it to shed more heat to space through the longwave atmospheric window.

A more complete analysis that includes convection changes the heat balance so that adding CO2 actually causes increased atmospheric cooling.

The latter moving towards a new input - output equilibrium where the balance is controlled by the atmospheric chemical mix, whereas just dumping heat directly isn't doing that (though if it were a hundred times more than now, one can imagine some territorial / atmospheric side - effects).