Sentences with phrase «raise atmospheric temperatures»

I'm just a chemist who only understood half your post, but it seems obvious that if you raise atmospheric temperatures faster than you raise oceanic temperatures, relative humidity will fall.

40 % increased heating raises atmospheric temperature and humidity.

Not exact matches

The mid-Pliocene was the last time atmospheric CO2 levels were similar to today's, trapping heat and raising global temperatures to above the levels Earth is experiencing now.

The non-GHG temperature of the surface is estimated at 255K or -18 C and that with atmospheric GHG raises it to 288 or +15 C.

Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops.

The failure to raise surface temperature whilst increasing atmospheric height is due to the physical effect of the Gas Constant and I will deal with that in more detail in a separate essay.

And as to his claim that there may be «places around the world where global warming will lead to less crop success and yield, even when taking into account the carbon dioxide fertilization effect,» he appears to be equally ignorant that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to raise the temperature of optimum plant photosynthesis beyond the predicted temperature values associated with global warming, effectively nullifying this worn out claim (Idso & Idso, 2011).

When Arrhenius came out with his theory in 1896 he calculated that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise global temperature by four - five degrees.

There is no net atmospheric radiative GHE raising surface temperatures from 255K by 33K.

Dr Soon: Before I reply, it is interesting that you raise the name of Rudolf Clausius (1822 — 1888), because Clausius» derivation, together with Emile Clapeyron (1799 — 1864), of the Clausius - Clapeyron relation between the temperature of the atmospheric space and the capacity of that space to carry water vapor is critical to the construction of a proper theory of climate.

Tom — You raise valid points about the challenge of model development for predicting long term trends such as temperature responses to a continued rise in atmospheric CO2.

We do not need models to anticipate that significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations harbor the potential to raise temperatures significantly (Fourier, 1824, Arrhenius, 1896), nor that the warming will cause more water to evaporate (confirmed by satellite data), nor that the additional water will further warm the climate, nor that this effect will be partially offset by latent heat release in the troposphere (the «lapse - rate feedback»), nor that greenhouse gas increases will warm the troposphere but cool the stratosphere, while increases in solar intensity will warm both — one can go on and on

EGHE, where atmospheric opacity to LWR raises height of topopause, reduces temp of photosphere, causes temperature rise at surface: this seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog; dare I use the term unphysical.

I don't care what physicists say about CO2, historical & modern data says there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels & temperature, except in that warming raises CO2 levels.

What I don't see, unless I missed it, is a Heat Balance showing how an increase of CO2, and only CO2, of the order of 100 ppm of atmospheric content, can raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree C or F?

If the parcel is raised (maintaining it at local atmospheric pressure and temperature), then the net force is zero and the net work done is zero.

Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017 [DOI: 10.1007 / s00704 -017-2139-0] «Recently, the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has raised air temperatures -LSB-...], but at the same time, there appears to be divergent trends in the precipitation dynamics between southern and eastern Finland (Fig. 2).

The warmer - than - normal waters raised Sea Surface Temperatures and changed atmospheric circulation.

The theory assumption of the models is that anthropogenic CO2 influences atmospheric CO2 levels which in turn raises global temperatures.

No, the skeptics here by and large believe CO2 does raise the lower atmospheric temperature.

Raising energy efficiency to offset projected growth in energy demand is an essential component of the Plan B blueprint to cut net CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020, thus halting the rise in atmospheric CO2 and helping keep future temperature rise to a minimum.

«Relatively cool waters in the eastern Pacific often result in stubborn summer high - pressure systems over the eastern states that block storms, reducing the frequency of precipitation below normal,» noted study co-author Richard Healy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass. «Less frequent storms result in higher surface and atmospheric temperatures that then feedback on the atmospheric circulation to further reduce storm frequency and raise surface temperatures even more.»

Since the CO2 looses 4.7 watts emission in a century, the earth accumulates this over the century raising temperature by 0.012 C / yr while the random chaos of the hydrological system with its raising temperature will radiate an additional power of 0.047 watts / year with its atmospheric water vapor temperature rise.

Individual eruptions can cool temperatures by blocking solar energy with their debris, but repeated or extensive eruptions can warm temperatures by raising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Scientists have calculated that, were the world ever to burn all its fossil fuels, thus increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and stoking up planetary temperatures, that would be enough to melt the entire Antarctic continent and raise sea levels by 60 metres.

Volcanoes Individual eruptions can cool temperatures by blocking solar energy with their debris, but repeated or extensive eruptions can warm temperatures by raising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The coincidence of the current plateau in global surface temperatures with the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has raised many questions about the climate models and their forecasts of serious anthropogenic global warming.

by Donald C. Morton The coincidence of the current plateau in global surface temperatures with the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has raised many questions about...

But it actually makes sense: El Ninos raise atmospheric temps because a deep pool of warm water in the western Pacific gets spread out over a larger area, raising sea surface temperatures over a big chunk of the Pacific.

After all, even the EPA's own lawyers, non-scientist professional bureaucratic infighters that they are, seem to recognize that if Mother Nature could, in pre-industrial times, raise the earth's global mean temperature to levels approaching today's levels — but without the benefit of having that additional 100 ppm of atmospheric CO2 with which to force the increase — then key parts of current AGW theory can be called into question, even the climate prediction models.

My guess the temperature changes can't be measured there, the deep ocean takes hundreds of years if not a thousand to come to the surface where it can impact the atmosphere and even then the dissipated heat can't raise the atmospheric global temperature because of all the changing currents and winds again spread it out.

«We are only able to state that the slowing in growth that we observed is consistent with the hypothesis that increases in temperature will cause decreases in tree growth,» explained Joseph Wright, a researcher at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.If this trend persists, tropical forests will likely emit ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the future — effectively raising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.