Sentences with phrase «positive temperature effect»

When both factors were combined, the positive temperature effect compensated for the negative effect of acidification — regardless of how much food the animals received.

Not exact matches

This positive effect was down to a combination of improved biomechanics, running economy and muscle temperature.

Using a rectal thermometer to take his temperature could bring about a positive effect in stimulating his bowel movements.

The researchers found that higher temperatures could actually have a positive effect on tree growth, as long as the trees had adequate water.

Going forward, Wang said, the positive effect of carbon dioxide - induced water savings may eventually be offset by the negative effect of carbon dioxide - induced temperature increases when the temperature increase crosses a certain threshold.

The model explicitly accounts for the effects of temperature and soil moisture changes (positive and negative) on global and regional wheat production fluctuations.

When the AMO is in its positive phase and the sea surface temperatures are warmer, the study has shown that the main effect in winter is to promote the negative phase of the NAO which leads to «blocking» episodes over the North Atlantic sector, allowing cold weather systems to exist over the eastern US and Europe.

The point is: it's widely recognized that CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase as a result of temperature increases, a positive feedback effect.

«However, this research indicates that mild cold and variable temperatures may have a positive effect on our health and at the same time are acceptable or even may create pleasure.»

Simply because of the higher temperature, the higher temperature is going to elicit a lot more positive effects than just the sweating alone.

The fabric covers contain 25 to 30 percent wool — a natural material which, unlike synthetic fibres, displays excellent electrostatic properties and, moreover, outstanding moisture absorption, which has a positive effect on the seat climate in high temperatures.

Human induced trend has two components, namely (a) greenhouse effect [this includes global and local / regional component] and (b) non-greenhouse effect [local / regional component]-- according to IPCC (a) is more than half of global average temperature anomaly wherein it also includes component of volcanic activities, etc that comes under greenhouse effect; and (b) contribution is less than half — ecological changes component but this is biased positive side by urban - heat - island effect component as the met network are concentrated in urban areas and rural - cold - island effect is biased negative side as the met stations are sparsely distributed though rural area is more than double to urban area.

Put it differently — why should plant physiologists think of positive effect of rising temperature and elevated CO2, without regarding change in preciupitation (which is going to be more and more disrupted)?

Likewise, they prefer to debate urban heat island effects rather than to discuss the rising temperature trends, other clear signs of rising temperatures, the positive feedbacks which are beginning to kick in so that climate change will take on a life of its own independently of what we do in the future if changes are not made now (# 111, «Storm World» post, comment # 141) and what such climate change will imply for humanity as a whole (Curve manipulation, comment # 74, A Saturated Gassy Argument, comment # 116).

However both do in fact force global temperature, therefore both could be called forcings and the greenhouse effect of water vapour would then be a positive feedback forcing.

Observations of the humidity in the upper troposphere and its relation with sea surface temperature in areas of deep convection point to an overall positive climate feedback by water vapour in the upper troposphere, which is inconsistent with the Iris effect.

... and all by itself... woops... a possible isolated, independent temperature rise of 3 - 5 degrees C average world surface temperatures by 2100, not even including any other positive forcings, because the forcing is already there waiting for the cancelling aerosol cooling effect to be removed...

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Apparently the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback (the word used to describe what effect — negative or positive — a gas has on the temperature) has written to Dr Spencer, agreeing that he is right.

But the CO2 rising does enhance the effect of rising temperature — a positive feedback.

However, the greenhouse effect from water vapour is due to a (positive) feedback from the temperature and so any warming caused by CO2 is amplified by water vapour.

The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

It points out that the greenhouse effect «paused» or exerted no positive radiative forcing on temperature (as expressed in W m - 2) from 1992 - 2014.

This is a second theory, that the Earth's temperature system is dominated by very strong net positive feedback effects.

Because the water holding capacity of the atmosphere increases exponentially with temperature (e.g., Trenberth et al. 2003), a positive anomaly on top of already high SSTs has much greater effect than if located elsewhere.

It indeed so far has followed the laws of physics and thus the temperature graph is mathematically a good fit for the expected effects of the current CO2 concentrations but not for professed «positive atmospheric feedbacks».

«We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice - core data that, over glacial — interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse - gas concentrations.»

-LSB-...] build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts.

The fact that is being overlooked is that the main positive feedback effect is thought to be, «more water vapour gives more temperature which gives more water vapour».

It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth to the atmosphere.

C) However, since the ice core record shows many instances where temperatures reverse and drop while CO2 is still increasing and vice versa, it is evident that there are other (largely unknown) climate drivers that routinely overwhelm whatever effect CO2 has on temperatures (positive feedback included).

Every model assumes that tropical - region cirrus cloud cover, which has a net warming effect on surface temperatures, increases with increasing surface temperature — a positive feedback.

C02 has little effect; late 20th century warming was largely a heat lag effect from solar activity, combined with a positive PDO; (this also fits perfectly with the pause since the late 1990s, which was not predicted using AGW); with currently a negative PDO and reduced solar activity, which means temperature will stay flat or go down to at least 2035, with the solar activitylikely remaining low.

If natural cycles were to cause a «step up» in their positive phase, then they would also cause a «step down» in their negative phase, thus having zero net long - term effect on global temperatures.

Because they live and work in highly urbanized areas that have the necessary attributes that cause a positive temperature feedback - often referred to as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI).

However, once temperature starts rising, there are other positive feedback effects.

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).

Parker lists 13 (out of 290 sites in his study) that show windy versus calm trend lines for min temperature that are in the direction he assumes would result from positive UHI effects.

One experimental study showed positive effects for rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) on appetite, growth, protein synthesis and oxygen consumption with a 2 °C temperature increase in winter, but negative effects with the same increase in summer.

However, they're called «oscillations» and «cycles» for a reason - they alternate between positive and negative states and don't have long - term effects on the Earth's temperature.

While the GCMs do not account for this positive feedback of CO2 release due to temperature increases, they need not do so because the effect is insignificant — lost in the noise.

Existing climate models with a positive feedback from H2O are plain wrong, since they don't allow the heated water vapour to rise, forming clouds that contribute to global dimming, offsetting CO2 effects on temperature.

Feedbacks in the climate system are net positive and will increase the rise in temperature to levels whereby the elevated temperature will have costly effects.

The most likely combined effect of changes to all cloud types is to amplify the surface temperature warming (a positive feedback).

(Too much uncertainty regarding the existence and magnitude of «biotic regulation» of our climate and the purported negative human impact on this mechanism; no mention of possible positive effect on biota of higher CO2 concentrations and / or slightly warmer temperatures.)

When the SAM is in a positive phase — meaning that the belt of winds is stronger than average — it has a cooling effect on Antarctic surface temperatures.

I would expect that this «Divergence Factor» might gradually take effect, such that it would slowly transition from a positive reaction to a negative reaction to temperature.

Had they applied reasonable physical models for the integrating and lagging (low pass filtering) response of the ocean, and the positive feedback of cloud albedo from the burn off effect, they could have discovered that solar activity can account for the full, 140 - year instrumented temperature record.

It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was also an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere.

But the last three years have all breached successive global temperature records, and they think this could mean that the IPO is beginning to have a positive effect.