Sentences with phrase «sea surface temps in»

Cool sea surface temps in the north - eastern Pacific to the late 1970's, warm to the late 1990's and a shift to cooler since.

«One of the major modes of climate variability is El Niño and when we're in El Niño there's a large area of warm sea surface temps in the Pacific,» this leads to more precipitation on the West Coast, Crouch said.

But, sea surface temps in the tropics are tied to incoming solar radiation and not the air above (in fact, the opposite is true).

Not exact matches

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

The sea is in a constant state of flux, so the temp at the surface is very close to that at 100».

This means that, e.g., if heat moves from the tropical surface water (temp about 25C) to surface waters at lower temps, the net effect is a subsidence of sea level — even without any change in total heat content.

As pointed out in the post, increasing sea surface temps due to GW is a necessary, if not a sufficient cause for increased TC intensity and frequency.

Hurricanes do have a deep surface mixing effect that normal tropical convection doesn't produce, and that would be expected to result in greater transfer of heat to the atmosphere, but it gets complicated in a hurry; see the realclimate discussion of the Walker circulation for example, as well as the link between hurricanes and sea surface temps.

There is good evidence that the answer to both these question is no: (The insensitivy of the results to methodology of selecting rural stations, the Parker et al windy days study, and the fact that data from satellite skin surface measurements, from sea surface temperatures, deep ocean temps as we as tropospheric temps are all in good agreement).

(> 70 % of the Pale Blue Dot is covered in H2O, so sea surface temps can swamp land surface temps, even tho the latter may «outnumber» the former by orders of magnitude.)

It's not entirely clear to me whether he's talking about the peak in sea surface temps or whether he was expecting the January UAH data to have peaked, but February came back and blew January out of the water (so to speak).

The following question that you posed is a good question: Is there a regime change in the Pacific or are 2015/16 sea surface temps — and resultant biological responses — just an excursion in a highly variable, complex and poorly understood system?

A change in Orbit or tilt comes to mind, as does a change in Sea Surface Temps, but would SST's change both?

There are still issues with coverage in surface air temps and sea surface temps.

Combine the satellite trend with the surface observations and the umpteen non-temperature based records that reflect temperature change (from glaciers to phenology to lake freeze dates to snow - cover extent in spring & fall to sea level rise to stratospheric temps) and the evidence for recent gradual warming is, well, unequivocal.

Is there a regime change in the Pacific or are 2015/16 sea surface temps — and resultant biological responses — just an excursion in a highly variable, complex and poorly understood system?

THERE HAS BEEN A WARMING TREND FROM THE 70s THRU THE LATE 90s,... accompanied by other changes tied to a warming trend (record low arctic sea ice extent & thickness, retreating glaciers, retreating snow lines, warming ocean surface temps, increases in sea height, de-alkalinizing oceans).

It is your icons in the «climate science consensus» community that pushed supposedly global surface air temperatures (occasionally combined with supposedly global sea surface temps) as «Global Average Temperature.»

2) The satellite tropospheric and sea surface (SST) data differ from the HADCRUT surface temp anomaly, with the present temperatures of both right at the same level as in 1991 (while Fig. 1 here shows an increase over 1991 of about 0.25 °C).

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.

In reality, there is constant flux with sea surface temps being at different times and places, cooler and warmer than air temps.

We have only tiny, slow increases in surface temps and tiny, slow increases in sea level rise, which have never ever been a problem for the inhabitants of the earth to deal with.

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

In a crude sense, to the extent that GCMs either replicate an AMO - like phenomenon, or produce large but nonperiodic fluctuations in sea - surface temps (AMO - like in size but not periodicity), then implicitly, the alternative hypothes in those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study doeIn a crude sense, to the extent that GCMs either replicate an AMO - like phenomenon, or produce large but nonperiodic fluctuations in sea - surface temps (AMO - like in size but not periodicity), then implicitly, the alternative hypothes in those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study doein sea - surface temps (AMO - like in size but not periodicity), then implicitly, the alternative hypothes in those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study doein size but not periodicity), then implicitly, the alternative hypothes in those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study doein those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study doein it than this study does.

I understand the Atlantic hurricanes are born if a) sea surface temp exceeds 27 deg in a rather thick layer; b) there is little wind shear and c) there is a suitable seminal thunderstorm cluster moving westward in the Intertropical Convection Zone (ITCZ) over the equatorial Atlantic.

There is a massive drop in temperatures from the surface of the sea to the underlying depths in the tropics and virtually none in the polar areas, in fact a lot of the polar surface temps are at or below zero.

The thermal expansion coefficient of sea water (in units of 10 ^ -7 / °C) ranges from 254 (at surface / -2 °C) to 1269 (at ~ 2000m / 2 °C) with higher values with increasing temps (especially at the surface).