Sentences with phrase «rate than the surface temperature»

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992).

Not exact matches

The deceleration in rising temperatures during this 15 - year period is sometimes referred to as a «pause» or «hiatus» in global warming, and has raised questions about why the rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower than in previous decades.

The world's surface temperatures have risen at a slower rate over the past 15 years than at any time since 1951, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The slowdown refers to slower - than - expected rates at which temperatures measured on the land and at sea surfaces have been rising since the turn of the century.

However, for the globe as a whole, surface air temperatures over land have risen at about double the ocean rate after 1979 (more than 0.27 °C per decade vs. 0.13 °C per decade), with the greatest warming during winter (December to February) and spring (March to May) in the Northern Hemisphere.

The former is likely to overestimate the true global surface air temperature trend (since the oceans do not warm as fast as the land), while the latter may underestimate the true trend, since the air temperature over the ocean is predicted to rise at a slightly higher rate than the ocean temperature.

The CDR potential and possible environmental side effects are estimated for various COA deployment scenarios, assuming olivine as the alkalinity source in ice ‐ free coastal waters (about 8.6 % of the global ocean's surface area), with dissolution rates being a function of grain size, ambient seawater temperature, and pH. Our results indicate that for a large ‐ enough olivine deployment of small ‐ enough grain sizes (10 µm), atmospheric CO2 could be reduced by more than 800 GtC by the year 2100.

* However, the same panel then concluded that «the warming trend in global - mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century.

The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.»

Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.»

So, although the science isn't «wrong» regarding the continued heating of the earth (net energy imbalance), the rate of rise of surface temperatures may prove to be much less than predicted by the models.

So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much — while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

I have no way of knowing the influence of «family relationships» between models, but it is clear that a large part of the apparent correlation of projected warming rate with average surface temperature is due to more runs for some models than for others, combined with the close relationships between certain models.

Well, this cools the tropics and cuts in to the potential for a super greenhouse effect where the rate of downwelling longwave increases relative to surface temperature more rapidly than upwelling longwave.

Temperature tends to respond so that, depending on optical properties, LW emission will tend to reduce the vertical differential heating by cooling warmer parts more than cooler parts (for the surface and atmosphere); also (not significant within the atmosphere and ocean in general, but significant at the interface betwen the surface and the air, and also significant (in part due to the small heat fluxes involved, viscosity in the crust and somewhat in the mantle (where there are thick boundary layers with superadiabatic lapse rates) and thermal conductivity of the core) in parts of the Earth's interior) temperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differentiTemperature tends to respond so that, depending on optical properties, LW emission will tend to reduce the vertical differential heating by cooling warmer parts more than cooler parts (for the surface and atmosphere); also (not significant within the atmosphere and ocean in general, but significant at the interface betwen the surface and the air, and also significant (in part due to the small heat fluxes involved, viscosity in the crust and somewhat in the mantle (where there are thick boundary layers with superadiabatic lapse rates) and thermal conductivity of the core) in parts of the Earth's interior) temperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differentitemperature changes will cause conduction / diffusion of heat that partly balances the differential heating.

My guess on why was shown at RC a few weeks ago in comment # 12... Wayne, if it's true as you indicated in 9, that upper air temperatures are increasing at a much stronger rate than near the surface, it seems to me the departure would explain at least part of what seems to be a large increase in world area having minimal rainfall and drought... at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/peter-doran-and-how-misleading-talking-points-propagate/

@ 48 If your speculation is correct, I assume that another consequence would be that, if / when concentrations of greenhouse gases start to drop, corresponding reductions in surface ocean / land temperatures would take place at a much slower rate than would otherwise be the case: the surplus heat stored in the deep ocean will gradually make its way to the ocean surface, and continue to warm the atmosphere for decades, if not longer.

The former is likely to overestimate the true global surface air temperature trend (since the oceans do not warm as fast as the land), while the latter may underestimate the true trend, since the air temperature over the ocean is predicted to rise at a slightly higher rate than the ocean temperature.

Even if clouds were decreasing there would be the clear sky super greenhouse effect where the rate at which downwelling thermal radiation grows relative to increasing temperatures is actually higher in the tropics than the rate at which surface thermal radiation emissions increase.

«Another recent paper used a different NOAA ocean surface temperature data set to find that since 2003 the global average ocean surface temperature has been rising at a rate that is an order of magnitude smaller than the rate of increase reported in Karl's paper.»

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

As a result the rate surface temperature change due to radiation imbalance is way smaller than you claim..

That warming on descent also reduces the rate of temperature decline with height which suppresses convection from the surface so that the surface on the day side then warms more than it otherwise would have done and the surface on the night side cools less quickly than it otherwise would have done..

me warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

Surface temperatures over land regions have warmed at a faster rate than over the oceans in both hemispheres.

What's lost in a lot of the discussion about human - caused climate change is not that the sum of human activities is leading to some warming of the earth's temperature, but that the observed rate of warming (both at the earth's surface and throughout the lower atmosphere) is considerably less than has been anticipated by the collection of climate models upon whose projections climate alarm (i.e., justification for strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels) is built.

These facts were enough for an NAS panel, including Christy, to publish a report Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change which concluded that «Despite differences in temperature data, strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is undoubtedly real, and surface temperatures in the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the past 100 yTemperature Change which concluded that «Despite differences in temperature data, strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is undoubtedly real, and surface temperatures in the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the past 100 ytemperature data, strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is undoubtedly real, and surface temperatures in the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the past 100 years»

At this computer - predicted «hot spot» high above the Earth, the UN's models project that greenhouse warming will cause temperature to rise over the decades at a rate up to three times faster than at the surface.»

The difficulty arises because oceanic sea - surface temperatures warm up at a much slower rate than those above land.

For the theory to hold true, the observable rate of temperature increase would be higher in the troposphere than at the earth's surface.

Actually, the atmosphere doesn't even delay cooling at the surface overnight either — we found that the surface temperature dropped ten times more than if it simply cooled at a direct rate without delay in cooling, and so therefore, it is not delaying cooling at the surface at all, but enhancing it.

Many agricultural regions warm at a rate that is faster than the global mean surface temperature (including oceans) but slower than the mean land surface temperature, leading to regional warming that exceeds 0.5 °C between the +1.5 and +2.0 °C Worlds.

For one thing, it's not «hot» (just expected to have a slightly faster temperature rate increase than the surface).

Now, add a source at greater than 15C (like a warm earth surface) and ad long as the rate of incoming 15 um radiation is greater than the 15 um radiation rate you already measured from your hohlraum there will be disequilibrium and the temperature of the hohlraum (not just the CO2 but all of the gas) will increase until the hohlraum is again emitting the same amount of 15 um radiation as is coming in.

In the opinion of the panel, the warming trend in global - mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century.

If (a) the surfaces of both objects behave like a black body, (b) the surface temperature of each body is everywhere the same, and (c) the internal energy sources are equal (i.e., their rates - of - internal - energy - generation are the same), at radiation - rate - equilibrium the surface temperature of the cube will be lower than the surface temperature of the sphere by the ratio of the fourth root of 1.2407 or 1.0554.

Yes, the same amount of energy has to get out into space at the same rate, over the long term, but the absorption by greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to be higher in order to radiate at a sufficiently higher rate (than would otherwise be the case) to make up for the fraction absorbed.

However the consensus of those who have studied the question most closely is that the global mean surface temperature is rising at a rate that will bring it to between 2 and 4 degrees hotter than today.

Robert Brown says» I'm not arguing that a dynamically driven atmosphere can have a lapse rate, only that Jelbring's static one will not, and hence can not be looked at as a source of «heating» or as a static mechanism that maintains the surface at a higher temperature than the gas overhead.»

I'm not arguing that a dynamically driven atmosphere can have a lapse rate, only that Jelbring's static one will not, and hence can not be looked at as a source of «heating» or as a static mechanism that maintains the surface at a higher temperature than the gas overhead.

Vaughan writes «However the consensus of those who have studied the question most closely is that the global mean surface temperature is rising at a rate that will bring it to between 2 and 4 degrees hotter than today.»

This higher rate of transfer of heat to the surface maintained the surface at a high temperature vastly longer than Kelvin calculated.

When you start at that height (which is around 6 — 8 km in the atmosphere) and work back down to the ground, the lapse rate means that the surface has a higher temperature than the non-greenhouse temperature of 255 K.

What is it that makes it hard for yourself to understand that the adiabatic lapse rate determines how much warmer the surface is than the mean temperature of the Earth - plus - atmosphere system, which is not particularly close to 255K by the way, but would be found somewhere in the troposphere, stratosphere or mesosphere.

The warming of surface temperature that has taken place during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real, and it is at a rate substantially larger than the average warming during the twentieth century.

Since the average lapse rate is -7 K per km, and the typically radiative surface in the atmosphere is at about 5 km, the surface temperature will be 5 x 7 = 35 K warmer than it would be in the absence of GHGs.

As the temperature increases, the water vapor pressure (hence by inference the water evaporation rate on non-dry surface) increases supralinearly; that is, a 1K increase from 288 K is much less than a 1K increase from 308K.

Therefore, if you work from the layer at which the radiation escapes into space (about 6 km) down to the ground, the negative lapse rate means that surface temperature has to be higher than the non-GHG temperature.

For example, the rate of warming of surface air temperature observed during the past 20 years is much greater than that observed during the previous 20 - year interval, 1960 — 79, and is not necessarily indicative of the rate of temperature change that will be observed during the future interval 2000 — 2019.

Assuming a full - glacial temperature lapse rate of -6 °C / 1000m, depression of mean annual temperature in glaciated alpine areas was ca 5.4 ± 0.8 °C; it is similar to values of temperature depression (5 - 6.4 °C) for the last glaciation obtained from various terrestrial sites, but contrasts with tropical sea - surface temperature estimates that are only 1 - 3 °C cooler than present.