Sentences with phrase «other warming mechanism»

This is exactly what would be expected from surface warming mediated by greenhouse gases or any other warming mechanism.

Not exact matches

Unlike fruit flies, humans and other warm - blooded animals do have a mechanism for adjusting internal temperatures.

The research performed at the Weizmann Institute of Science shows that part of this will be due to the mechanism they demonstrated, and the other part is tied to the fact that storms are born at a higher latitude in a warmer world.

These other mechanisms include a net release of energy over regions that are cooler during a natural, unforced warming event.

Other research in Europe has shown that plants can shift another mechanism that controls their response to climate: vernalization, or the length of the cold snap required before a plant will respond to a warm spell as a growth signal.

He and other researchers haven't yet nailed down the mechanism that connects Arctic warming to cold, snowy winters in the northeast.

All the models I've seen rely on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases will necessarily increase the long - term average temperature of the globe and that all the other mechanisms that cause or counteract warming are understood and modeled fairly accurately.

b) There is some other mechanism of producing global warming that has been active in the past, but occurs by a mechanism that is not included in current models, and which doesn't have anything to do with CO2, and this, rather than CO2, is responsible for the warming seen in the instrumental record (and whatever that mechanism is, it is temporary and will go away by itself Real Soon Now).

All the models I've seen rely on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases will necessarily increase the long - term average temperature of the globe and that all the other mechanisms that cause or counteract warming are understood and modeled fairly accurately.

And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like - minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop a cost equalization mechanism to apply to those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.

A General Agreement on Climate Change (GACC) would consist of core agreements on allowable national contributions to global warming over time and would enable a wide range of other agreements on technology transfer, funding mechanisms and other issues as needed to accommodate the interests of nations.

If your study shows global warming kills toads, it has a much better chance of making it into Nature than if you identify some other causal mechanism.

Could other mechanisms contribute to the warm pool, such as differences in cloud cover?

There are other mechanisms affecting the temperature of the warm pool, however, like variations in evaporation rate.

The excessive warming, on the other hand, is based on a somewhat more nerdy mechanism that has been known to experts for some time: if the AMOC weakens, the Gulf Stream shifts closer to the coast.

-- A pair of top - notch economists, Robert Stavins of Harvard University and Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, urge policy makers not to discard market - based approaches to global warming and other environmental problems because of the death of efforts to pass a climate bill centered on a cap - and - trade mechanism for cutting emissions.

Did you know that Dr. Mann has said that models indicate that increased warming must come from the increase in CO2 because the models show no other mechanism?

Note that during both the Eemian and MIS11, CO2 levels were lower than they are today, which strongly suggests a polar warming / melting mechanism other than CO2.

Dr. Mann in the initial few seconds of your link did NOT say «models indicate that increased warming must come from the increase in CO2 because the models show no other mechanism».

The other possibility is that the models are wrong, the quantification of the warming in the north is wrong and the mechanisms are not understood, these unknown mechanisms are causing a much more rapid warming, that they asymmetrically affect the north and not the south, and - for reasons I don't see but which I'm sure are very good - you are convinced these mechanisms are driven by global warming.

What I have always read is that previous warmings were originally caused by other factors but were amplified over time by CO2 as a feedback mechanism.

Thus, the mechanisms (terminus thinning and subsurface warming) don't seem to rule each other out, and both might be adding to the overall observed result.

Previous large natural oscillations are important to examine: however, 1) our data isn't as good with regards to external forcings or to historical temperatures, making attribution more difficult, 2) to the extent that we have solar and volcanic data, and paleoclimate temperature records, they are indeed fairly consistent with each other within their respective uncertainties, and 3) most mechanisms of internal variability would have different fingerprints: eg, shifting of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere (but we see warming in both), or simultaneous warming of the troposphere and stratosphere, or shifts in global temperature associated with major ocean current shifts which for the most part haven't been seen.

Lewis's level of certainty given how complex he has to make his analysis, and that it just doesn't hold up to the warming rate since 1970, where he would need to invoke a second warming mechanism to account for the other half.

Maybe those mechanisms operated in the past to produce... oh, warming comes to mind, and other measurable changes, like maybe the dust bowl.

Other than the melting of land ice (which would have to involve warming of course) I can not think of another mechanism, can you?

While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.

In other words, many of the models include no mechanism for natural global warming.

The causal case is a cumulative case of: 1) correlation + 2) well - evidenced mechanism (i.e. plausibility) + 3) primacy, where the proposed cause occurs before the effect + 4) robustness of the correlation under multiple tests / conditions + 5) experimental evidence that adding the cause subsequently results in the effect + 6) exclusion of other likely causes (see point 7 as well) + 7) specificity, where the effect having hallmarks of the cause (ex: the observed tropospheric warming and stratopsheric cooling, is a hallmark of greenhouse - gas - induced warming, not warming from solar forcing) 8) a physical gradient (or a dose - response), where more of the cause produces a larger effect, or more of the cause is more likely to produce the effect +....

Lets look at real planets which are always warmer than interstellar space, and real atmospheres where at the base (troposphere) heat transport by convection dominates all other mechanisms by a huge margin.

So SE, and several others, have asked what other mechanism is causing OHC to rise when the atmosphere is not warming.

This mechanism should provide that any government's positions on their climate change commitments can be questioned by other governments and NGOs in regard to the adequacy of the commitment to achieve a warming limit and the fairness of the reductions.

Unlike water vapor, CO2 has no other mechanism beside its greenhouse effect by which it might cause warming.

Two mechanisms which must, surely, lead to different patterns of warming, with one heating the atmosphere and the other heating the surface.

Sphaerica writes, in part, «Also, kindly explain the mechanism (other than hand waving, magic, and climate gremlins) that is actually causing the warming.

You still keep stating that there is no specific such thing as AGW but in the other thread you demonstrated that you don't d not even understand the mechanism by which CO2 warms the atmosphere so clearly you are not (yet) bringing any meaningful discussion on that point.

Mathematically, then, how much of the warming since 1880 has been caused by humans by mechanisms other than anthropogenic CO2?

WHEN the skin layer is warmer than the water below (and not mixed by the wind), there is no obvious mechanism (other than very slow conduction) for AGG - enhanced DLR to penetrate the ocean.

And even if this mechanism was shown to occur in the atmosphere, other climatologists say this wouldn't mean it caused our current state of global warming.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

In particular: i) the emphasis on reconstructions of historical temperature records; ii) the over-sensitivity of climate models; iii) the exaggeration of positive feedback mechanisms and the opposite with respect to negative feedbacks; iv) the over-statement of second and Nth - order effects of warming on natural processes and society as «impacts»; v) the IPCC reports are not written exclusively by scientists, but in the case of WGII and WGIII especially, are, as has been discovered — by sceptics — written by academics from other disciplines, often without any remarkable expertise, and by activists, with particular agendas.

It was «el Nino modoki», meaning warming of the equatorial mid Pacific by some mechanism other than the Bjerknes feedback.

The «radiation only» equilibrium models do not address the other issue that the layers of the surface and atmosphere can warm at different rates because they have a different mix of cooling mechanisms.

In order to explain how much warming is due to that identified mechanism, all of the other mechanisms affecting warming and cooling must be identified and quantified.

It seems to me in the last year / few years we are seeing more papers shed light on «new» positive feedback mechanisms coming into play on the planetary scale, whether it is the MacDougall paper mentioned in the article, or the recent paper on warmer and higher vapor pressure vegetation and trees losing water to a warmer atmosphere, or many others.

In other words will the small amount of warming cause the powerful GHGs (like water vapour) to increase the amount warmed or is the climate system stable such that there are feedback mechanisms which works to dampen and / maintain the climate in a «steady state».

To me this has always suggested some other mechanism for solar influence and a possible understating of the sun's role in recent warming, since the same Be10 proxy has shown high activity for the last hundred or so years.

For example, the argument that follows very substantially from the extent of continental shelf that there is within the Arctic Basin and, therefore, the particular relationship that warming on that relatively shallow sea has on trapped methane - for example, the emergence of methane plumes in that continental shelf, apparently in quite an anomalous way - leading possibly to the idea that there may be either tipping points there or catastrophic feedback mechanisms there, which could then have other effects on things, such as more stabilised caps like the Greenland ice cap and so on.

«but can not rule out substantial warming from other causes such as solar forcing and internal multi-decadal ocean oscillations owing to the circular reasoning and to the lack of convincing attribution mechanisms for the warming during 1910 - 1940 and the cooling during the 1940's and 1950's.»

I would say the present warming rate is consistent with CO2 and significant feedback, and other evidence like stratospheric cooling corroborates the mechanism, while disproving ocean or solar explanations.