Sentences with phrase «very warm surface temperatures»

Since the very warm surface temperatures of 1998 which followed the strong 1997 - 98 El Niño, the increase in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid temperature increases, with more of the excess heat being stored in the oceans.

Since the very warm surface temperatures of 1998 which followed the strong 1997 - 98 El NinÌ o, the increase in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid temperature increases, with more of the excess heat being stored in the oceans.

Not exact matches

The results show that even though there has been a slowdown in the warming of the global average temperatures on the surface of Earth, the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14 - 15 km above the surface of Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface basSurface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface bassurface based one.

A very recent study by Saba et al. (2015) specifically analyzed sea surface temperatures off the US east coast in observations and a suite of global warming runs with climate models.

I have a post at Nate Silver's 538 site on how we can predict annual surface temperature anomalies based on El Niño and persistence — including a (by now unsurprising) prediction for a new record in 2016 and a slightly cooler, but still very warm, 2017.

The point about heating (adding energy) vs warming (temperatures going up) is a very good one — it might help if the scientists involved with the major temperature series people look at (GISS, RSS, etc) also produced a global surface energy change index that accounted for things like melting ice, which absorb heat without raising temperatures.

The problem here is that estimates of changes in sea surface temperature and the depth of the warm mixed layer might be very unreliable, since the general behavior of the Atlantic circulation is only now being directly observed — and the most recent findings are that flow rates vary over a whole order of magnitude:

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.

Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.

The record - breaking year of 2005 had below - average dust over the Atlantic, very warm sea surface temperatures, and an unprecedented four hurricanes that reached category 5, the highest classification.

It could very well be that general warming along with high sea - surface temperatures have lengthened the tropical storm season, making it more likely that a Sandy could form, travel so far north, and have an opportunity to interact with a deep jet - stream trough associated with the strong block, which is steering it westward into the mid-Atlantic.

Given all the independent lines of evidence pointing to average surface warming over the last few decades (satellite measurements, ocean temperatures, sea - level rise, retreating glaciers, phenological changes, shifts in the ranges of temperature - sensitive species), it is highly implausible that it would lead to more than very minor refinements to the current overall picture.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface basSurface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface bassurface based one.

It stands to reason that the oceans haven't been that warm in a while but since the average temperature of the whole mass of water is so dependent on circulation (it's only the surface temperature that's constrained by its interactions with the atmosphere and space), I suppose a plausible history of that particular value would be very hard to reconstruct.

Note also that the global warming trend has not been terribly strong over the last decade, so inferring a negative feedback to surface temperature change is a bit odd to me, particularly when the feedback would have to be very sensitive.

The contribution to sea surface height by thermal expansion is significant, but doesn't play a very big role in determining the temperature of the warm pool.

Considering that the mechanism of the «natural AMO» is so poorly understood, there's no justification for immediately blaming increases in hurricane activity on it while entirely ignoring global warming effects on sea surface temperatures (and atmospheric moisture), for which very clear mechanisms do exist.

Alas the atmosphere has temperature, will radiate according to its temperature and close to the surface the temperature of that atmosphere is little different from the surface, very warm relatively, and radiates lots of energy.

These record temperatures have been assisted by a very strong El Niño event, which brought warm water to the ocean surface, temporarily warming global surface temperatures.

Humans are contributing to global warming, and very likely are responsible for most of the measured increase in global surface temperature.

But 2015 is the height of a very large El Niño, a quasi-periodic warming of tropical Pacific waters that is known to kite global average surface temperature for a year or so.

With true global coverage later in the record the surface warming trend overwhelms any regional temperature cyclicity, as you've very convincingly demonstrated.

«With very high sea surface temperatures that have a strong global warming component, these flooding events break records, and cause untold damage,» he says.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

Global Sea Surface Temperatures are very warm at the moment.

Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface.

The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.

Early on in my following of the global warming issue I became aware of the Surface Stations Survey, which led me to be very skeptical of the validity of the most recent temperature data trends, as I have never seen any convincing explanation as to how data from the many urban heat island and «corrupted» temperature monitoring sites are properly corrected.

In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010 - and as the keeper of the Hadley - CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to know - the planet hadn't warmed on average over the decade.

Do you deny that a non-illuminated surface radiating into space would (in the absence of warming from above or below) cool to that very low temperature?

The data indicate the sea surface temperatures of the tropical oceans warmed at a not - very - alarming rate of 0.11 deg C / decade, while the models indicate that, if the surfaces of the tropical oceans were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, they should have warmed at almost 2 times that rate, at 0.22 deg C / decade.

In the figure below, the carbon - caused warming is shown in blue, and in combination with natural cycles (which Broecker turns out not to have represented very accurately) in green, as compared to the observed global surface temperatures from NOAA in red.

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

Then try 1365/4 for the flux and emissivity of 0.88 (which is closer to that of rock and soil) and you get 287.6 K which is very close to the assumed mean surface temperature and thus obviates any need for that «33 degree of warming» In fact the 0.88 should be even lower and that gives higher temperatures above 290K.

Muller started out very skeptical about the accuracy of the surface temperature record and the causes of global warming.

Today, he said, summer temperatures approach or just exceed freezing point around Antarctica: «It would not take much warming to see a pretty dramatic increase [in surface melting] and it would happen very quickly.»

Be aware that the «global temperature» measure is a surface or near - surface measure in the atmosphere, and even if it was possible to measure it very accurately, it is really only a proxy for global warming of little use over periods up to a decade or so.

Warm water on Mars, boils - it's lacks atmospheric pressure lowers the boiling point to somewhere around 5 to 10 C. And 5 C water would not boil on Mars, but it would evaporate quicker on Mars then it does on Earth - because no where on Earth is drier than Mars [due to changing temperatures, frost does form on the Mars surface at equator and at nite - this requires the thin Mars air to become saturated - but generally very dry.

The last time in Earth history when the global average surface temperature was as warm as the IPCC projects for 2100 in its mid-range scenarios, there was very little polar ice and sea level would have been roughly 70 meters (over 200 feet) higher than at present.

One shows a statistically significant warming (at more than 90 % probability) very similar in magnitude to the surface temperature trends, the other one doesn't.

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.

The Met Office's Professor Adam Scaife FRMetS stated: «The global mean surface temperature this year looks likely to agree with the prediction we made at the end of last year that 2017 would be very warm but was unlikely to exceed the record temperature of 2015 and 2016.»

The warming in the ACORN - SAT dataset is very similar to that shown in international analyses of Australian temperature data and very closely matches satellite data and warming of sea surface temperatures around Australia.

It looks like the sub-sea permafrost is failing due to warmer ocean temperatures and allowing methane to escape; because the Siberian Sea is very shallow the methane isn't oxidized as it travels to the surface.

In some frequencies, thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently, and the backradiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface.

Once radiative equilibrium is reestablished, this is a very helpful picture because we have just shifted the altitude higher from which the earth radiates but have kept the same temperature which means the surface must be warmer because it is connected by the lapse rate.

Today, one need only quote Monckton and then cite the recent MSU and surface data demonstrating that the climate has resumed a significant warming phase, and indicating the possibility that this year will either be the warmest since temperature recordings began, or very close to it.

Hence the reason to switch to a stronger more compelling proof of Global Warming would suck away the last breaths of doubts spun by mischievous contrarians knowing full well that surface temperature trends are long term, but count on the ignorance of the lay, and jump up and down very excited by any short term surface temperature drop.

There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global - scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions...