Sentences with phrase «temperature changes than others»

Not exact matches

Long - term changes in temperature and precipitation are making some rivers flood days, weeks or even months earlier than they did 50 years ago, and pushing flooding in other areas much later, researchers report August 11 in Science.

Most of these lakes are in the eastern Himalayas, where glacier lakes are expanding more rapidly than those in other parts of the mountain range mostly due to rising temperatures and decreasing snowfall during the summer monsoon as a result of climate change.

The giant wind turbines cropping up on ridges, shorelines and other windy locales across the world affect more than the wind — they are also changing local temperatures, notes a new study.

The new skin can sense changes that are an order of magnitude smaller and have a responsivity that is two orders of magnitude larger than those of other electronic skins over a 45 - degree temperature range.

Temperature and other climate changes in open expanses, such as the Amazon basin or Sahara Desert, will cover broader swaths of land than steep peaks, meaning that «large geographic displacements are required to change temperature appreciably,» wrote the rTemperature and other climate changes in open expanses, such as the Amazon basin or Sahara Desert, will cover broader swaths of land than steep peaks, meaning that «large geographic displacements are required to change temperature appreciably,» wrote the rtemperature appreciably,» wrote the researchers.

Such trends mean scientists and policymakers will have to factor in how synthetic climate forcers other than greenhouse gases will change temperature, rainfall and weather extremes.

There are other influences on the jet stream's behavior, and some scientists think that changes in tropical ocean temperatures, or the cyclical recurrence of El Niño, might have a bigger effect on the jet stream than changes in the Arctic.

Since the 19th century, sea level has shot up more than 2 millimeters per year on average, far faster than other periods of global temperature change.

The global mean temperature rise of less than 1 degree C in the past century does not seem like much, but it is associated with a winter temperature rise of 3 to 4 degrees C over most of the Arctic in the past 20 years, unprecedented loss of ice from all the tropical glaciers, a decrease of 15 to 20 % in late summer sea ice extent, rising sealevel, and a host of other measured signs of anomalous and rapid climate change.

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

Schmittner et al hints that a comparable change will not take too many degrees Celsius, as the temperature difference to LGM is smaller than in other estimates.

In contrast to this observational approach, Schmittner (as well as a number of other papers, like reference # 4 in this post) take advantage of both models and observations, and try to use the observations to constrain which feedback parameters in the model are consistent (e.g., an overly sensitive model with the same forcings as another model will produce too big of a temperature change than observations allow).

The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The other significant point in all this is that the adjustment time of CO2 is different for naturally induced temperature changes than it is for artificial releases.

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).

But changes in these levels might well be responses to other factors rather than being cause of the temperature variation.

We collectively need to demand that there is no acceptable response to climate change other than strong emission reductions, ensuring that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to 350ppm levels, global temperature rise is kept (at the maximum) 2 °C and, even better, 1.5 °C — to do that, as was emphasized on numerous occasions, we need a F.A.B. climate deal: Fair, Ambitious, and (perhaps most importantly) Binding.

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

It could be smaller than that or larger, depending on the way that temperature varies with height; but it will not be larger than twice that, provided that a temporary saturation doesn't happen and then significantly reverse in the span of a single doubling — in other words, provided that the process of any temporary saturation and following reversal (wherein BTc0 increases, halts, and then decreases, or in the opposite order) can be sufficiently resolved by the fractional change in CO2.

The IPCC range, on the other hand, encompasses the overall uncertainty across a very large number of studies, using different methods all with their own potential biases and problems (e.g., resulting from biases in proxy data used as constraints on past temperature changes, etc.) There is a number of single studies on climate sensitivity that have statistical uncertainties as small as Cox et al., yet different best estimates — some higher than the classic 3 °C, some lower.

V 53: Supporters of the mainstream climate change hypothesis claim there is no explanation for the (supposedly) alarming rise in temperatures other than CO2 emissions, and they challenge skeptics to provide one.

Supporters of the mainstream climate change hypothesis claim there is no explanation for the (supposedly) alarming rise in temperatures other than CO2 emissions, and they challenge skeptics to provide one.

It should not be so hard to accept that doubling the concentration of a gas that interacts with earth's radiative output (which is orders of magnitude larger than any other energy loss), over time and with feedbacks included, can change change the surface temperature by about 1 %.

If La Nina / El Nino can affect global air temperatures in a period of a few years, than other changes in ocean currents (driven by AGW) can affect global atmospheric heat content in a few years.

Is it not also given that there is continuous change on Earth, in a lot more ways than temperature, eventually leading to the death of this planet, it's a chaotic work in progress... perhaps it is ridiculous and short sighted to even hope to meaningfully alter any part of the process in the long - run... it may be possible that so many other unforeseen changes in natural life conditions besides getting warmer (or colder) are in store for us that, in hind sight we will look back and chuckle at our feeble efforts to control something so beyond man's control.

The bottom line is: the method used in the paper is unsound because it neglects noise (influence from factors other than solar and GHG) and it may blow up if the temperature changes while there are unrelated changes in the temperature.

But as greenhouse gases increase — at many many times the rate than they have int the past — they become the dominant forcing, and the other causes of temperature change become decreasingly relevant.

Caused by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural practices, and other human impacts, climate change has currently raised global temperatures 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.44 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the Industrial Revolution average.

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated a clear expert consensus that: «It is extremely likely [defined as 95 - 100 % certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human - caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1,000 tree - ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1,500 years (Mann 2009).

This in turn may mean that something other than global temperature - for example, rainfall - has changed much more in X than in Y.

As Howard noted, the Southern Ocean has absorbed lots of manmade CO2 while temperatures and nutrients have not changed as much, making it more ideal for studying ocean acidification than other areas.

In fact, they may do so more efficiently than more uniform temperature change; warming one hemisphere with respect to the other is an excellent way of pulling monsoonal circulations and oceanic ITCZs towards the warm hemisphere (the last few years have seen numerous studies of this response, relevant for ice ages and aerosol forcing as well as the response to high latitude internal variability; Chiang and Bitz, 2005 is one of the first to discuss this, in the ice age context; I'll try to return to this topic in a future post.)

That is the nature of negative feedback systems, of which our climate is a prime example (note that «negative feedback» includes the Planck Response — in essence, the Stefan - Boltzmann response — and does not contradict the concept of «positive feedbacks» as amplifiers of CO2 - mediated temperature change, where «positive» is used to denote feedbacks other than the Planck Response).

The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less - than - straightforward task.

Other than that, changes to it might correspond to changes in general engine temperature as the cooling system changes due to action of the thermostat.

Even in areas where precipitation does not decrease, these increases in surface evaporation and loss of water from plants lead to more rapid drying of soils if the effects of higher temperatures are not offset by other changes (such as reduced wind speed or increased humidity).5 As soil dries out, a larger proportion of the incoming heat from the sun goes into heating the soil and adjacent air rather than evaporating its moisture, resulting in hotter summers under drier climatic conditions.6

Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.

To prove your point, you would have to hold ALL other causes of temperature change constant and show that the temperature increase was more with a free to increase CO2 level than not.

As a result of the build - up of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — due to our burning of fossil fuels, cutting down trees and other activities — global average temperature is now changing at a faster rate than at least over the past 1,000 years.

The problem is that we are looking for the average of the actual global temperature changes for Earth where some areas warm more rapidly than others and some areas cool.

Greenland's ice has been melting faster than many scientists expected just a decade ago, spurred by warming sea and land temperatures, changing weather patterns, and other factors.

This is because physical and biological responses to changing temperatures are often better understood than responses to other climate parameters, and the anthropogenic signal is easier to detect for temperature than for other parameters.

The other side — who expect big temperature jumps and catastrophic consequences — are accused of being ideologues, or interested in making an alarmist case in order to further their own careers as climate change activists, or authoritarian monsters who are less interested in saving the planet than in forcing their own left - wing economic order on the rest of the world.

More complex models exist, and they effects other than the change in the dry bulb temperature when estimating the rate of change in the internal energy of the planet.

but I saw nothing in the SB11 paper that would indicate anything OTHER than a response to temperature changes that alters cloud cover.

It is not at all clear to me why the TOA balalnce should not change for reasons other than as a response to temperatures.

Should a developed nation such as the United States which has much higher historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time to prevent warming above 2 degrees C, a temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.

Could it not change as a result of variations in system variables other than the temperature or just spontaneously e.g. stochastically?

Temperature induces cloud variation as a feedback, but cloud variation, for reasons other than temperature change, would behave as a forcing in itsTemperature induces cloud variation as a feedback, but cloud variation, for reasons other than temperature change, would behave as a forcing in itstemperature change, would behave as a forcing in its own right.