Sentences with phrase «ocean than air temperatures»

Not exact matches

Meanwhile, on the cut - off high's eastern side, winds heading south drove cold air from the Arctic Ocean toward Greenland's southern tip, bringing the lower than usual temperatures there.

Water changes temperature more slowly than the air or land, which means the global ocean heat is likely to persist for some time.

However, for the globe as a whole, surface air temperatures over land have risen at about double the ocean rate after 1979 (more than 0.27 °C per decade vs. 0.13 °C per decade), with the greatest warming during winter (December to February) and spring (March to May) in the Northern Hemisphere.

The observed fact that temperatures increases slower over the oceans than over land demonstrates that the large heat capacity of the ocean tries to hold back the warming of the air over the ocean and produces a delay at the surface but nevertheless the atmosphere responds quit rapidly to increasing greenhouse gases.

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.

The former is likely to overestimate the true global surface air temperature trend (since the oceans do not warm as fast as the land), while the latter may underestimate the true trend, since the air temperature over the ocean is predicted to rise at a slightly higher rate than the ocean temperature.

Second, as Gavin pointed out, the land - ocean temperature index tends to underestimate the truth because it's based on sea surface temperature rather than air temperature, while the meteorological - station index temperature tends to overestimate the truth because land warms faster than ocean.

Excerpt: Livermore CA (SPX) Nov 01, 2005 If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business as usual manner for the next several centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.

Temperature tends to respond so that, depending on optical properties, LW emission will tend to reduce the vertical differential heating by cooling warmer parts more than cooler parts (for the surface and atmosphere); also (not significant within the atmosphere and ocean in general, but significant at the interface betwen the surface and the air, and also significant (in part due to the small heat fluxes involved, viscosity in the crust and somewhat in the mantle (where there are thick boundary layers with superadiabatic lapse rates) and thermal conductivity of the core) in parts of the Earth's interior) temperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differentiTemperature tends to respond so that, depending on optical properties, LW emission will tend to reduce the vertical differential heating by cooling warmer parts more than cooler parts (for the surface and atmosphere); also (not significant within the atmosphere and ocean in general, but significant at the interface betwen the surface and the air, and also significant (in part due to the small heat fluxes involved, viscosity in the crust and somewhat in the mantle (where there are thick boundary layers with superadiabatic lapse rates) and thermal conductivity of the core) in parts of the Earth's interior) temperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differentitemperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differential heating.

The former is likely to overestimate the true global surface air temperature trend (since the oceans do not warm as fast as the land), while the latter may underestimate the true trend, since the air temperature over the ocean is predicted to rise at a slightly higher rate than the ocean temperature.

If a significant fraction of this heat lost from the ocean went into the atmosphere one might have expected the surface air temperature to have increased faster during this period than during the subsequent period of the 1990s when the ocean heat content gained > 5 X 10 ^ 22 J, but this is not what was observed (see reference Figure 2.7 c in the IPCC TAR Working group I).

However their predictions are about much more than just the average near - surface air temperature, they are mainly focused on how heat mixes into the ocean and how that affects the rise in surface temperature as CO2 is doubled over 100 years.

If La Nina / El Nino can affect global air temperatures in a period of a few years, than other changes in ocean currents (driven by AGW) can affect global atmospheric heat content in a few years.

Although the climate conditions of the Antarctic continent are colder and drier than in the Peninsula, ice shelf thinning could be caused by a warmer ocean instead of warmer air temperatures.

Unfortunately, every article I have read that explains why hurricane strength is anticipated to increase merely cites the observed link between hurricane strength and ocean temperature, without explaining why CO2 would cause water tempertaures to rise more than that of the air above it.

When the reseachers at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research — Oslo (CICERO) applied their computer «model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7 °C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.»

High quality heat (5000K sunlight) is transformed into low quality heat (255K water) and it can never again be used to heat anything to a temperature higher than 255K which includes the ocean surface and the air above it.

100 years of 0.5 W / m2 energy imbalance can only raise ocean basin temperature 0.2 C which can not raise air temperature more than 0.2 C. Temperature rise can be temporarily higher in the ocean's surface if energy is being added faster at the surface than it can diffuse downward to the otemperature 0.2 C which can not raise air temperature more than 0.2 C. Temperature rise can be temporarily higher in the ocean's surface if energy is being added faster at the surface than it can diffuse downward to the otemperature more than 0.2 C. Temperature rise can be temporarily higher in the ocean's surface if energy is being added faster at the surface than it can diffuse downward to the oTemperature rise can be temporarily higher in the ocean's surface if energy is being added faster at the surface than it can diffuse downward to the ocean floor.

An ocean that is 0.2 C warmer than the air can not possibly raise the air temperature more than 0.2 C.

And air temperatures over exposed land surfaces should warm differently than air temperatures over sea ice, especially when open ocean separates them.

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.

Recent studies have shown that Antarctica's two continental ice sheets are more sensitive to changes in ocean and air temperatures than previously thought, he notes.

Water takes longer to heat up and cool down than does the air or land, so ocean warming is considered to be a better indicator of global warming than measurements of global atmospheric temperatures at the Earth's surface.

Arctic air temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world — a study by the U. S. Navy says that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice by next year, eighty - four years ahead of the models — and evidence little more than a year old suggests the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, which will add between twenty and twenty - five feet to ocean levels.

Given the fact the the bulk of the energy in the TOA imbalance is getting stored in the ocean, yet temperature anomalies over the ocean are less than over the land, for the above stated reasons, the global combined land and ocean (that is, air over the ocean) temperature anomalies actually tend to greatly understate to a the actual effects of the anthropogenic caused TOA anomaly.

If the sun is primarily responsible for observed global air temperature changes (even if heavily modulated by ocean behaviour as I contend elsewhere) then we need to know sooner rather than later otherwise a misdiagnosis of the causes of climate change could cause unimaginable disruption and hardship through the imposition of incorrect remedies.

So.the evaporation of the oceans is because it has slightly higher temperature than the local air.

Map of air temperature anomalies for December 2009, at the 925 millibar level (roughly 1,000 meters [3,000 feet] above the surface) for the region north of 30 degrees N, shows warmer than usual temperatures over the Arctic Ocean and cooler than normal temperatures over central Eurasia, the United States and southwestern Canada.

Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions.

Based on changes in tree line, pollen samples and ocean sediments, scientists estimate Arctic air temperatures during the mid Holocene averaged 2 to 7 °C higher than today.

Surface air with enough energy to generate a hurricane only exists over oceans with a temperature greater than 26.5 ° Celsius (80 ° F).

December air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean region, eastern Siberia, and northwestern North America were warmer than normal.

For the US MIDWEST, the air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.

In Fig 22 you state that «air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.»

I'm inclined to think that Ocean Heat Content, trends in land ice and Sea levels are more appropriate indicators of global climate change than surface air temperatures, but that's another issue.

At low altitude and high temperatures (greater than 30 °C or 86 °F), over the ocean, it can reach 4.3 % or more of the atmosphere and is less dense than dry air, causing it to rise.

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).

Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (approximately 2,500 feet above sea level) were more than 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2010 average over the central Arctic Ocean and northern Barents Sea, and as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the Chukchi Sea.

It is hard to say with the surface data we have, but it appears that Arctic Ocean cyclones are still warmer than the High pressure over the gyre, of interest is when these temperatures will be equal, then the switch should happen when cyclones cool surface air instead.

Water carries far more latent heat than air and just a slight rise in local ocean water temperature can contribute to rapid ice loss.

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.

Actually Huang does recognize and talk about the difference in trends derived for a climate model between tas and tos using the GFLD CM2.1 model and there the authors report trend differences from 1875 to 2000 where the ocean air temperature trends are higher than the ocean surface temperature trends on the order of what the Cowtan paper found for several CMIP5 models.

Air temperature over land is increasing faster than over the oceans.

Back radiation can only heat the ocean if the air temperature is warmer than the surface skin temperature (back radiation will contribute to the downward energy flux in all cases, but heat transfer, which is the net energy flow, always goes from hot to cold).

When temperature of the skin layer becomes higher than the temperature 5 cm below then we have the heat flow down (the daytime regime) while at night the temperature of the skin layer becomes less than that 5 cm below and the ocean loses energy to the air.

And as long as the temperature of the ocean skin layer is higher than that of the air layer, the net heat flow will go from the ocean skin layer in the direction to the air layer.

First, tracking ocean heat content is considerably harder than tracking surface air temperature.

The oceans may or may not have been a net carbon sink but the extent to which they acted as a net carbon sink would have been reduced by the higher surface temperatures and that to me suggests that they must have contributed to higher CO2 in the air and since the oceans are magnitudes more important than human emissions in the natural carbon cycle that is where we need to look to explain observed changes.

Surface temperatures can show short - term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

Craig King - Further to Bob Loblaw's comments; that global surface air temperatures are warming faster than upper ocean temperatures is well - observed and completely uncontroversial.