Sentences with phrase «net warming factor»

Not exact matches

And a third found that climate - induced sea - surface temperature anomalies over the northeast Pacific were driving storms (and moisture) away from California, but the warming also caused increased humidity — two competing factors that may produce no net effect.

This is what I get out of it: the Arctic - ice - albedo situation is more complicated than earlier thought (due to clouds, sun - filled summers, dark winters, etc), but NET EFFECT, the ice loss and all these other related factors (some negative feedbacks) act as a positive feedback and enhance global warming.

Assuming that scientists haven't left out anything vital, this suggests that the net effect of water - based feedbacks is positive and would amplify GHG - induced warming by more than a factor of two.Many assumptions have been made, but the historical evidence increases our confidence in model results.

So, unless you can provide me with the balance sheet, taking into account all the factors that I mention in my dissertation, WE don't know if the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, cooling, or simply (close to) zero.

Factors that resulted in a net cooling or a net effect close to zero aren't really relevant, nor are climate dynamics that affect the rate of warming as a function of ocean heat uptake, since that does not significantly affect the apportionment of warming among different fFactors that resulted in a net cooling or a net effect close to zero aren't really relevant, nor are climate dynamics that affect the rate of warming as a function of ocean heat uptake, since that does not significantly affect the apportionment of warming among different factorsfactors.

The two most important ones relate to a) the impact of natural climate variability and forcing factors and b) the sign and magnitude of the net overall feedback that could be expected to occur, which could either amplify or moderate the warming expected from a climate forcing.

And thirty years later, there is vigorous debate over the magnitude of both natural and anthropogenic factors, and how opposite effects of the latter (SO2 cooling versus CO2 warming) net out.

The climate sensitivity factor for their removal is.02 degrees C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in the global amounts of SO2 emissions.

Well it's even more complex than that because the net warming from humans doesn't just involve CO2, but other greenhouse gases and it factors in the cooling effect of aerosols being dwarfed by the CO2 forcing.

(PS — I don't remember my entire comment, but part of it had to do with the fact that in dividing up attribution for the forcings responsible for post-1950 warming, uncertainties regarding anthropogenic sulfate aerosols are not particularly important, because their net cooling effect wouldn't influence the percentage apportionment among the warming factors)

However — a group of scientists of the US Department of Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the University of Maryland and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem now say that aerosol pollution does not necessarily lead to (low - lying) stratus clouds one would appreciate for climatic cooling, but that it can also be a factor in the creation of thunderstorm clouds, clouds that have a complicated climate effect, but that are suspected of being net warmers.

It DOES N'T take any net CO2 outgassing from the oceans in the case that the atmospheric CO2 growth is caused to a significant degree by warming climatic factors — there's MORE than enough human input to achieve the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

The important metric for ocean warming and cooling is net TOA flux — in which in the medium term cloud variability is overwhelmingly the significant factor.

There is very little to suggest — against a background of considerable variability — that the planet is net warming still from the combination of factors.

I'll try to respond in more detail later, but I'd like to note that the anthropogenic contribution is not necessarily bounded at 100 %, since natural factors could in theory have contributed a cooling effect (also in a period of net warming; that does not negate the cooling argument).

Bart Verheggen: I'll try to respond in more detail later, but I'd like to note that the anthropogenic contribution is not necessarily bounded at 100 %, since natural factors could in theory have contributed a cooling effect (also in a period of net warming; that does not negate the cooling argument).

Therefore if the contribution to the warming is greater than 100 %, the remainder are natural factors that reduce the warming to give us the net.

This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3 - 4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2 - 1.3 °C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.

Since the whole ocean, Atlantic and Pacific, has warmed, as well as unpopulated land areas, doesn't that rather rule out UHI as being much of a factor, and, being a net warming, it also wouldn't be ocean circulation changes.

This means he overestimated solar energy entering the lower Venusian atmosphere by a factor of about 7 so came to the conclusion that he could assume NET surface IR was much greater than reality and imagined it, rather than gravity, causes lapse rate warming.

On the one hand he can't admit to a feedback factor of 2.5 from his own numbers, but on the other he can't say this warming is just due to cloud changes, because that hurts his friends» theories about net negative cloud feedback.