Sentences with phrase «produces warming of the surface»

Of these forcings, the only non-human-induced forcing that produces warming of the surface temperature is the estimated long - term increase by 0.3 W / m2 of solar irradiance since 1750.

Not exact matches

Most scientists and climatologists agree that weird weather is at least in part the result of global warming — a steady increase in the average temperature of the surface of the Earth thought to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses produced by human activity.

«With warmer sea surface temperatures beneath the cloud, the coalescence process that produces precipitation becomes more efficient,» team member Richard S. Lindsen of M.I.T. explains.

Instead of dissipating into space, the infrared radiation that is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor or carbon dioxide produces heating, which in turn makes the earths surface warmer.

The researchers reported that the shifting winds «produce an intense warming» just below the surface of the ocean.

On the other hand, if the ice shell is sufficiently thick, the less intense interior heat can be transferred to warmer ice at the bottom of the shell, with additional heat generated by tidal flexing of the warmer ice which can slowly rise and flow as do glaciers do on Earth; this slow but steady motion may also disrupt the extremely cold, brittle ice at the surface to produce the chaos regions.

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.

With its vibrant palette of warm golden colors and a surface infused with painterly passion, Joan Mitchell's luxurious canvas, Blueberry, belongs to a group of significant works which demonstrate the artist's unrivaled skill at producing paintings which evoke the rich emotions of nature and landscape.

There doesn't seem to be a secret that needs uncovering: when I ask what prompted him to move from the lush, textured surfaces of the paintings he produced in the 90s — canvases that seem to have a warm bloom across them like a beautiful mould — to the flatter, looser, more painterly style he employs today, once again, he has no complex rationale.

The paintings in this series are produced using the classical oil painting methods and materials of the Old Masters — successive layers of warm and cool black pigment glazes varnished to a highly reflective surface resulting in a profoundly deep pictorial space.

Even in the absence of huge amounts of carbon dioxide as a forcing mechanism, he said, there still appear to be trigger points that, once passed, can produce rapid warming through feedbacks such as changes in sea ice and the reflectivity of the Earth's surface.

The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface.

«We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer - term warming,» the paper says, adding that, «It is easy to «cherry pick» a period to reinforce a point of view.»

A stronger gravitational field will produce a lower, denser, warmer surface than a weaker gravitational field since the amount of solar energy retained by the atmosphere will be focused into a smaller volume and that amount of energy will be determined by the amount of mass available to absorb it at any given level of solar irradiation.

Right and that fundamental is that a doubling of CO2 will increase atmospheric resistance to heat loss by about 3.7 Wm - 2 which could produce 0.8 to 1.5 C of warming depending at the surface or surfaces chosen as references.

Jim Cripwell is an idiot in the opinion of the warmers, because the physics is sound, «a doubling of CO2 will cause 1 - 1.5 C of warming at some surface which will produce some undetermined amount of warming at the «true surface» over some undetermined time frame.»

Produce evidence of (a) the temperature of the air adjoining the surface being warmer than the surface at night, thus «stopping convection» and (b) any other inversion in calm conditions at night in the troposphere.

Absorption of solar radiation by ozone shields the terrestrial surface from harmful ultraviolet light and warms the stratosphere, producing maximum temperatures of − 15 to 10 °C (5 to 50 °F) at an altitude of 50 km (30 miles).

In climate - change discussions, two Princeton professors go against the grain By Mark F. Bernstein The issue of climate change, or global warming, has become a rallying cry: The Earthâ $ ™ s surface temperatures are Ârising due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other Âgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of it produced by human activity.

The «unnatural» warming so far seen is however trended strongly to the alterations to the planetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming&surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming&Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming».

The extra boost from the warmer water is adding even more energy into this storm system, increasing the availability and transport of moisture toward land and producing more efficient wind gusts to the surface.

Heat picked up at the surface is thus rapidly vertically mixed and transported by all three mechanisms — conduction, convection and radiation — acting at different length scales and with considerable and non-ignorable chaotic and self - organized emergent mesoscale structure — to produce an atmosphere that, as you note, ends up somewhere between the DALR and isothermal most of the time, although inversions (warmer on top) or with a gradient even larger than the DALR happen all the time, and are unstable or transiently metastable states with some lifetime and break apart and perhaps reform somewhere else as the conditions that favor them recur.

«The ability of a planetary atmosphere to inhibit heat loss from the planet's surface, thereby enhancing the surface warming that is produced by the absorption of solar radiation.

Steven, that would only be fair since warmists already have had their fun seeing skeptics squirm and disown thee efforts of Judy's own BEST team to produce a land surface record that incorporates many more stations, and implements better algorithms, in order to correct alleged warmist biases in the CRU record, only to discover that the CRU warming trend was biased low.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

My personal views are: (1) Yes, it is true that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will tend to warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Yes, human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia are uncertain because proxies have been misapplied by the hockey stick crowd.

Collectively the processes produce 20 to 30 year warmer or cooler regimes of Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature — and abrupt shifts between that may be triggered by UV / ozone chemistry modulation of the polar annular modes.

If this is the best such land area surface temperature assessment system on the planet (covering, as well, a broad range of metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas), and the quality of the system is now proven to be demonstrably more prone to error than had been previously assumed — with the preponderance of error shown to produce the impression of warming in excess of real conditions prevailing — what may be reliably inferred about surface temperature monitoring systems data from even less reliable thermometers all over the rest of the world?

For example, atmospheric GCM simulations driven by reconstructed SSTs from the Pliocene Research Interpretations and Synoptic Mapping Group (Dowsett et al., 1996; Dowsett et al., 2005) produced winter surface air temperature warming of 10 °C to 20 °C at high northern latitudes with 5 °C to 10 °C increases over the northern North Atlantic (~ 60 ° N), whereas there was essentially no tropical surface air temperature change (or even slight cooling)(Chandler et al., 1994; Sloan et al., 1996; Haywood et al., 2000, Jiang et al., 2005).

Backing that up, NASA says that 1) sea surface temperature fluctuations (El Niño - La Niña) can cause global temperature deviation of about 0.2 °C; 2) solar maximums and minimums produce variations of only 0.1 °C, warmer or cooler; 3) aerosols from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo for example) have caused average cooling of 0.3 °C, but recent eruptions have had not had significant effect.

If countries were to start right away and build really fast, so that they installed a trillion watts of gas - fired electricity generation steadily over the next 40 years, that would still add about half a degree Fahrenheit to the average surface temperature of the Earth in 2112 — that's within a tenth of a degree of the warming that coal - fired plants would produce by that year.

If heat flow into the deeper ocean (under 300m) is driven independently of Global Average Surface temperature or the «greenhouse» effect, then we have no reason to suppose that the latter produces any «global warming» at all.

Consider that just moving some of the already warmer surface water to depth (while some upwelling of colder water occurs elsewhere as a compensation) results in an increasing heat content at depths while * simultaneously * producing a decrease in heat content at the surface.

Easterling and Wehner (2009) showed that «the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer - term warming.»

The constant flow of relatively warmer surface water that started in the mid 60s from the equitorial atlantic produced a net increase in arctic ice melt, thus a colder southward current in the E Atlantic, giving the wrong impression of generalised cooling in the region.

Eventually the surface will cool sufficiently to produce an observed reversion of the warming trend that increased the level of «humidity».

«The constant flow of relatively warmer surface water that started in the mid 60s from the equitorial atlantic produced a net increase in arctic ice melt, thus a colder southward current in the E Atlantic»

Unseasonably warm summers appear to be abetted by microbes and algae that grow on the increasingly wet surface of the ice sheet, producing pigments that boost the ice's absorption of solar energy.

The quantitative details of the surface vs. TOA budget reasoning are discussed heavily in Ray Pierrehumbert's upcoming «Principles of Planetary Climate» textbook, and he has also worked with David Archer to produce a historical account if this type of stuff in «The Warming Papers» (though I haven't looked at this yet, if it's even available right now).

Second, even if the 3.7 W / m ² figure is correct, it could not possibly produce 1.2 °C of warming at the surface.

(A major warm - up predicted for sections of West Antarctica will likely produce surface melt as temperatures rise to above freezing.