Sentences with phrase «on global atmospheric temperatures»

Not exact matches

To explain this apparent paradox, the researchers called upon a theory for how the global carbon cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature are linked on geologic timescales.

The temperatures in the central Pacific have the biggest impact on the global atmospheric circulation, and therefore the biggest impacts on global weather, says Timmerman, who has been warning that this El Niño is likely to be a record - breaker.

Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur - rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption.

During the PETM, atmospheric carbon dioxide more than doubled and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees Celsius, an increase that is comparable with the change that may occur by later next century on modern Earth.

Their findings, based on output from four global climate models of varying ocean and atmospheric resolution, indicate that ocean temperature in the U.S. Northeast Shelf is projected to warm twice as fast as previously projected and almost three times faster than the global average.

Yet there is no doubt that research into atmospheric aerosols is becoming increasingly important due to the effects that they can have on the global temperature of Earth, given that solar radiation is the main source of energy for Earth - Atmosphere system.

«Human influence is so dominant now,» Baker asserts, «that whatever is going to go on in the tropics has much less to do with sea surface temperatures and the earth's orbital parameters and much more to do with deforestation, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.»

It is well - established in the scientific community that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels result in global warming, but the magnitude of the effect may vary depending on average global temperature.

Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions.

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Much study has focused on the effects these rising carbon dioxide levels could have on weather patterns and global temperatures, but could elevated atmospheric CO2 levels negatively affect the nutritional value of the food we grow?

Global positioning satellites (GPS); remote sensing for water, minerals, and crop and land management; weather satellites, arms treaty verifications; high - temperature, light - weight materials; revolutionary medical procedures and equipment; pagers, beepers, and television and internet to remote areas of the world; geographic information systems (GIS) and algorithms used to handle huge, complex data sets; physiologic monitoring and miniaturization; atmospheric and ecological monitoring; and insight into our planet's geological history and future — the list goes on and on.

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

Future global temperature change should depend mainly on atmospheric CO2, at least if fossil fuel emissions remain high.

The link between global temperature and rate of sea level change provides a brilliant opportunity for cross-validation of these two parameters over the last several millenia (one might add - in the relationship between atmospheric [CO2] and Earth temperature in the period before any significant human impact on [CO2]-RRB-.

As the authors point out, even if the whole story comes down to precipitation changes which favor ablation, the persistence of these conditions throughout the 20th century still might be an indirect effect of global warming, via the remote effect of sea surface temperature on atmospheric circulation.

I am not assuming — there is overwhelming evidence (from copious data, much of which can be found on or linked to from this web site) that global temperatures are rising at a rate that may soon seriously disrupt human civilization, and that the best explanation for the cause of that projection (based on even more data) is human - driven, rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field... On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.

The Advocates and the Opponents of global warming struggle to agree even on the reliability of the measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels, global temperature rise is kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/: «Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, recently gave a talk on the «global warming hiatus,» a slowdown in the rise of the global mean surface air temperature.

And the reason those 21st century emissions fail to make much of an impression on global temperature is because the atmospheric levels of GHG begin to decline when our emissions are cut (the cut required depending on the gas in question).

The researchers found that reefs in the warmest part of the Pacific Ocean — holding some of the most diverse coral arrays on Earth — have not been adversely affected as global ocean and atmospheric temperatures have risen since 1980.

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

Considering that the mechanism of the «natural AMO» is so poorly understood, there's no justification for immediately blaming increases in hurricane activity on it while entirely ignoring global warming effects on sea surface temperatures (and atmospheric moisture), for which very clear mechanisms do exist.

«Climate sensitivity» remains a subject of intense investigation, and what counts as hellish is a matter of judgment, but United Nations climate negotiators have settled on a goal to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million, which would cause the global mean temperature to peak no more than 3.6 °F above preindustrial levels.

But the evidence shows this can't be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.

Climate alarm depends on several gloomy assumptions — about how fast emissions will increase, how fast atmospheric concentrations will rise, how much global temperatures will rise, how warming will affect ice sheet dynamics and sea - level rise, how warming will affect weather patterns, how the latter will affect agriculture and other economic activities, and how all climate change impacts will affect public health and welfare.

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated by 2100 to be reduced by 3.29 to 3.68 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0076 to 0.0184 °C, and sea - level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.074 — 0.166 cm, based on a range of climate sensitivities.

People simply fail to look at the most basic of radiative physics in assessing the impact of atmospheric CO2 on global surface temperature.

«Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads / lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.»

Previously, an analysis on the global satellite temperature dataset found that atmospheric global warming has actually been decelerating since the Super El Niño event of 1997 - 1998.

But of course the pace of the temperature trend also depends on the global future emissions outlook and on remaining uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity — or the politically most relevant metric «Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity» (ECS), the amount of warming expected on a decades timescale after doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

This adjacent plot of 5 - year temperature change versus 5 - year atmospheric CO2 level change is based on the most recent empirical evidence published by the government's GISS / NASA scientists (and they happen to be some of the largest proponents of chicken little global warming calamities).

The DICE model attempts to quantify how the atmospheric concentration of CO2 negatively affects economic output through its impact on global average surface temperature.

-- Susan Solomon, Nature The Long Thaw is written for anyone who wishes to know what cutting - edge science tells us about the modern issue of global warming and its effects on the pathways of atmospheric chemistry, as well as global and regional temperatures, rainfall, sea level, Arctic sea - ice coverage, melting of the continental ice sheets, cyclonic storm frequency and intensity and ocean acidification.

Comment on» The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim.

However, a clear understanding of how national emissions reductions commitments affect global climate change impacts requires an understanding of complex relationships between atmospheric ghg concentrations, likely global temperature changes in response to ghg atmospheric concentrations, rates of ghg emissions reductions over time and all of this requires making assumptions about how much CO2 from emissions will remain in the atmosphere, how sensitive the global climate change is to atmospheric ghg concentrations, and when the international community begins to get on a serious emissions reduction pathway guided by equity considerations.

Unless more CO2 from human sources could increase total atmospheric density it could not have a significant effect on global tropospheric temperature.

Comparison of global lower troposphere temperature anomaly over the oceans (blue line) to a model based on the first derivative of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa (red line).

So even assuming that reductions of human - induced CO2 emissions would have any effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, the reductions would not influence global temperatures according to the Wallace et al., 2016 study.

Tamino has a new and unusually good — even by his high standards — post on why there is no «hiatus» even in atmospheric global temperatures.

Requires the President, if the NAS report finds that emission reduction targets are not on schedule or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric GHG concentration thresholds, to submit a plan by July 1, 2015, to Congress identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional GHG reductions.

In fact, the best current studies show that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effects on global temperatures and encourage plant growth.

m (that's the computer - predicted radiative forcing on a doubling of atmospheric CO2) is only enough to increase the mean global surface temperature by 0.68 degC at a baseline temperature of 288K according to the Stefan - Boltzmann law.

Type 3 dynamic downscaling takes lateral boundary conditions from a global model prediction forced by specified real world surface boundary conditions, such as for seasonal weather predictions based on observed sea surface temperatures, but the initial observed atmospheric conditions in the global model are forgotten.

But what if decreases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures?

«The authors write that «the El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a naturally occurring fluctuation,» whereby «on a timescale of two to seven years, the eastern equatorial Pacific climate varies between anomalously cold (La Niña) and warm (El Niño) conditions,» and that «these swings in temperature are accompanied by changes in the structure of the subsurface ocean, variability in the strength of the equatorial easterly trade winds, shifts in the position of atmospheric convection, and global teleconnection patterns associated with these changes that lead to variations in rainfall and weather patterns in many parts of the world,» which end up affecting «ecosystems, agriculture, freshwater supplies, hurricanes and other severe weather events worldwide.»»

In fact, recent research shows that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels have no significant effect on global temperatures.