Sentences with phrase «think land warms»

Not exact matches

Warm - bloodedness in land animals could have developed in evolution much earlier than previously thought.

The material on Amazon forest dieback was in the IPCC assessment as were the numbers on recent sea level (thought the IPCC did not use the information on recent contributions from land ice in their estimate for 21st century warming.)

Land - use changes in the United States, such as the conversion of undeveloped land to housing or agricultural use, appear to be contributing to global warming trends to a much greater degree than scientists previously thouLand - use changes in the United States, such as the conversion of undeveloped land to housing or agricultural use, appear to be contributing to global warming trends to a much greater degree than scientists previously thouland to housing or agricultural use, appear to be contributing to global warming trends to a much greater degree than scientists previously thought.

But I thought that the lower atmosphere was expected to warm faster than the surface (when comparing global, land + ocean trends).

In AR5, the IPCC scientists thought it as likely as not that land use change actually caused warming rather than cooling.»

Don't even think of trying to keep yourself warm on the amount of biomass you can grow on 0.025 acres of land.

I also think that if one wishes to prove that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming then the focus of temperature measurement should be upon those few feet between the Earth's surface and the measuring instruments employed on land for measuring that temperature.

In addition, global warming or cooling (the most commonly thought of examples of climate change) could decrease or increase the length of time snow remains un-melted (and thereby keeping water «trapped» on land).

It's not the «warming but less than we thought» soft landing you and yours are now praying for.

I would have thought that was a more reasonable view than a large coincidental natural fluctuation that somehow also more rapidly warmed the land, removed Arctic sea ice and raised ocean heat content while giving us the warmest decade on record.

Well, some of it is due to the warming and some from land bio-residues but I tend to think it is «mostly due to human activities» until we actually get a better accounting.

I actually think the evidence of the more rapid cooling and warming of land comes from the period before 1940 and actually breaks down in the 1940 - 45 period (ocean warming without land warming) which supports your contention that the war period data is anomalous.

Other than the melting of land ice (which would have to involve warming of course) I can not think of another mechanism, can you?

Thoughts on Antarctic Sea Ice In warm times, when southern polar waters are warm and the ice around the Antarctic continent is small, the snow falls on the ice on land and builds up.

Early models (TAR I think), predicted Antarctic land ice would increase as warming seas resulted in more moisture being blown over Antarctica and falling as snow.

Tomorrow we'll pay attention to that very interesting new study about clouds — a bombshell we think — but today we have another one that should serve as a foundation to scientific thinking about climate forcing, namely the suggestion that «not all climate forcers are equal» — equal in the way they act as a cooling or warming force, considering important factors like time scale and the geographical characteristics of a planet with a 3D atmosphere and a northern hemisphere with land masses and a southern hemisphere with just mainly a lot of oceans.

As written above, it is natural that lands warm (cool) faster than seas: but, I think, it would be much better for studying GW (there are many other issues for lands even without GW) to point on waters rather than on inhabited lands (with a simple condition: all waters; not saying that Arctic pack is decreasing, making silence on Antarctic pack because it instead doesn't fit AGW theories).

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Self - avowed «P.R. agent for the planet» Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man — among them, Vice President Dick Cheney — are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.»

Personally I think he landed on the ocean heat argument as being the only reasonable way to measure global warming because he thinks he can make a stronger measurement uncertainty - based action - delaying argument on this tack... Who, me?

Do you think it is possible that agricultural land use could be responsible for 50 % of the warming since 1814?

August may turn out to still be quite warm (daily UAH temperatures are still very high), but by September I think we will see the delayed effect of the dropping SST kicking in for land and LT temperatures.

Since my instinct is that there has been a bit of warming, and one of my complaints has been that there seems to have been no non-risible estimate of it based on land surface measurements, I am glad to think that, after due criticism and correction (if required), there may soon be such a non-risible estimate.

The coldest reaches of the Arctic on land were once thought to be at least temporarily shielded from a major — and worrisome — effect of a warming climate: widespread melting of permafrost.

Captain, do you think all land - use changes lead to warming, or might they cancel?

And I think you hit the nail on the head with: «5) Once we scientifically - oriented Skeptics accept the reality of the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect» we are, IMHO, better positioned to question the much larger issues which are: a) HOW MUCH does CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?»

I think that pointing to ocean heat content is the best response that can be made to anyone who thinks warming has stalled — surface air temperatures are not the definitive measure of climate change and I'd like to see the habit of treating it like it is replaced by reference to more fundamental measures of change like heat content of oceans (plus land, ice and atmosphere).

Clive Hamilton at Australia's ABC says: «A new study concludes that an average warming of 3 - 4 °C (which means 7 - 8 °C on land), previously thought to be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations of 500 - 600 ppmv, is now believed to be associated with concentrations of only 360 - 420 ppmv, a range that covers the current concentration of 385 ppmv, rising at 2 ppmv per annum.

I think that, given how steadily it has been warming since 1980 (about 0.3 C per decade for the average land area, see below), a forward projection would be a good central estimate around which to add the uncertainty that partly includes what emissions will do in that timeframe.