Sentences with phrase «warm currents going»

The fall of the temperature of the sea water is sometimes a sign of the proximity of ice, although in regions where there is an intermixture of cold and warm currents going on, as at the junction of the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream, the temperature of the sea has been known to rise as the ice is approached.

Not exact matches

It's a «feel good» message that gives everyone warm feelings before they die and go to Hell because the «chaplin» wanted to make sure that they were «at peace» in their current state, and lost sight of the state to follow.

«Whatever the niceness and the current warm glow, Corbyn will be a leader of the hard left, for the hard left, and espousing both general politics and specific positions that the public just are not going to accept in many of the seats that Labour is going to have to win to get back in power.»

In a new paper, Hansen and colleagues warn that the current international plan to limit global warming isn't going to be nearly enough to avert disasters like runaway ice - sheet melting and consequent sea - level rise.

The Pacific Ocean's current cool phase is driving the global warming slowdown — but that countering effect is not going to last, scientists say.

«Having said all that,» said Larsen, «the current climate could slow down the advance of Yahtse or it could stop it a lot sooner than it would if we didn't have this warming trend going on right now.»

Forecasters believe the current Kelvin wave and the already warmer ocean temperatures, signal that the El Niño is going to persist, which was another factor in officially declaring an event.

This dialogue concluded that... limiting global warming to below 2 °C necessitates a radical transition through deep decarbonization starting now and going forward, not merely a fine tuning of current trends.»

Look chill whilst keeping warm with a high neck long sleeved top you can throw on and go, or keep it current with a cold shoulder top featuring killer cut outs.

It's not quite warm enough to bare my toes in NYC, so I'm gravitating toward a chunky heeled bootie (my current go to right here!).

One of my favorite go - to coping mechanisms is layering in warmer weather pieces with my current winter wardrobe.

i do nt know to what extent people will warm to this movie due to the current economic climate... or they could be making it relevant... getting rich while everything else is going to shit.

(see Part 1 of the Link) The way to go is simply to state clearly what the working hypothesis is and what are the reasonable assumptions that went into them — in my case the basic assumptions are that the current warming peak is a synchronous peak in the 60 and 960 year periodicities and that the 10Be and neutron count records are the best proxy for solar activity.

b) There is some other mechanism of producing global warming that has been active in the past, but occurs by a mechanism that is not included in current models, and which doesn't have anything to do with CO2, and this, rather than CO2, is responsible for the warming seen in the instrumental record (and whatever that mechanism is, it is temporary and will go away by itself Real Soon Now).

Seems this might hold for larger scale events, such as the arctic ice melting (i.e., there would be more warming in the arctic ocean in our current times, except some of the «warming» energy is going into the melting process rather than warming).

First, thanks to everyone at realclimate for all their excellent work; this website goes a long way to help negate the impact of the mostly fossil fuel funded denier charade, and is especially useful for the interested layperson to stay abreast of current research on global warming.

I don't see a compelling reason for middle school science teachers to go into details of the earth's current warming, although they should be free to do that if they want to.

So the «skeptics» need proxies, because they want to believe that it has been this warm before (for some reason that the current models can't predict), and it went away of its own accord.

But if global warming continues at its current rate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates, the glaciers could be mostly gone from the mountains by 2035.

It's too soon to say whether the current «pause» in warming is anything more than statistics being clouded by one unusual El Nino event, but we should be thinking now about possible explanations just in case something more interesting is going on.

However, if either A we are simply dead wrong about the impact of GHGs and / or B we are missing the forest (solar / astronimical and tectonic things) for the trees (gas mixture things) and the actual future, among the several possible futures, turns out to be one of cooling — possibly the outright end of the current interglacial, then all those people wound up to believe in a warm future are going to be cold, hungry and out for blood.

If there was more natural variation in the past millenia, specifically due to solar changes, then that goes at the cost of the GHG / aerosol combination, as both are near impossible to distinguish from each other in the warming of the last halve century... Solar activity has never been as high, and for an as long period, as current in the past millenium (and even the past 8,000 years).

A more reasonable natural variability / forcing argument might go something like this: 1) There is natural variability of climate due to solar activity 2) Climate is changing now 3) Forcing can result in climate change, but the response of the C cycle to forcing is poorly understood 4) Forcing is happening now 5) Forcing and / or solar activity could be to blame for current warming trends Is this unreasonable?

BTW: going back 15 million years or more (say, to dinos 65 Myr) is not relevant to GHG warming today — the current glaciation cycle is only a COUPLE of a million years old!

If the book goes on to say that current science indicates at least half the warming of the last 50 years is due to human influence, is that not exactly what the IPCC says?

The currents near where the warm anomalies have been found move 180 degrees the other way, and that is going to cause opposing current flow given the earth EMF and that moving conductor.

bozzza - The differences in the Arctic are perhaps 1/4 the ocean thermal mass as global ocean averages, small overall size (the smallest ocean), being almost surrounded by land (which warms faster), more limited liquid interchanges due to bottlenecking than the Antarctic, and very importantly considerable susceptibility to positive albedo feedbacks; as less summer ice is present given current trends, solar energy absorbed by the Arctic ocean goes up very rapidly.

Since OHC has continued going up throughout, Pielke correctly predicted the current situation, and the globe has warmed throughout the «pause».

Thank you for agreeing that there are other factors at work in global warming and bearing in mind the strength of those as demonstrated by climate history then any claim that man - made factors are anywhere near as large as 100 % or greater are going to have to demonstrate the current and past natural changes and how they interact.

They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30 % of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents.

In order to properly understand, what is going on in the Arctic ocean, we first must understand the oceanic oscillation and the currents in this vast ocean, it is interesting to note, Sweden is recalling its ice breaker from the USA Antarctic survey, and there is concern in the sea of Okhotsk — where, for the last couple of years breaking the winter sea ice has been a major problem, colder here, relatively «warmer» there etc..

But Lindzen has gone too far, Schneider says, because, given the complexity of the subject, it makes no sense to focus on a few unexplained aspects of human - induced warming when the overwhelming indicators — along with current temperature and weather patterns — suggest that the theory is right.

The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun - spots, and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.

You have to go a very, very long way around the facts to call it questionable or preconceived that the current level of global temperature today is warm relative to the later part of Marcott's reconstruction.

I'm not for a moment suggesting this makes global warming go away, only it might slow the rate of change down - a bit - in the short term (perhaps the average transit time of deep currents).

I looked first at the Vostok core data and found that the current warm period was far more stable that all others going back nearly 500k years and that all the other warm periods had been hotter than the current.

You wrote, «And inquiring oceanographers want to know, where can they go in the South Atlantic to measure warm SURFACE currents that cross the equator?»

Further, the probabilistic approach reveals a picture startling to even most global - warming pessimists: If we're to avoid precipitating what that U.N. Framework Convention genteelly calls «dangerous anthropogenic interference,» we're going to have to aim at an atmospheric greenhouse - gas concentration target that, by current trends, we'll reach in less than two decades.

So whenever I see a claim like above about warming in Alaska I jump to the current weather charts to see what's going.

And since the temperature difference between the Arctic and the tropics is narrowing, and since it's the temperature difference that drives wind and ocean currents, then the jet stream that normally whizzes around the Arctic circle — thus keeping frozen air in one place and separating it from the warm breezes of the south — is, the theory goes, slowing, thus allowing warm moist air to penetrate into the north.

Because the current plan (such as there is one) is «We need to limit warming to 2C so we're not going to take enough action to make this likely».

I was going to look at the whole thing now but the post has been getting very long so for now I'll just focus on the ideas that the current warming is insignificant on geological timescales, and that warming is good anyway.

Two scientists who believe we are on the wrong track argue in the current issue of the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming is inevitable and it's time to switch our focus from trying to stop it to figuring out how we are going to deal with its consequences..»

The paper being discussed here makes the claim that the current hiatus in warming is due to the heat going into the Atlantic ocean as the Atlantic ocean is currently in the 30 year cooling phase of it's ~ 60 year warming / cooling cycle.

Is the current modern warming a peak and are we going to slide down the other side in the near future?

In your most current comment to me, you go on to quote Nathan Mantua of JISAO, «Typical surface climate anomaly patterns for warm phases of PDO are shown in Figure 1.

Also it is not that relevant to our current problem of finding where the heat that would have warmed the surface has gone.

If the current temperature continues for another 6 months or so, HadCRUT3 will show a «no warming» trend since January 1998, or over 14 years (with only 3 years left to go).

While I hope this is not the case (for the sake of climatology going forward beyond the current cult of global warming) you are to be lauded as one of the few voices with the courage to treat this a scientific issue rather than a political one.

If the previous models are unskilled at predicting the current hiatus in surface warming and this is really because the warming has gone into the oceans then exactly how long will this take to come back and bite us in the bum?