Sentences with phrase «warmer ocean temps»

Also, warmer ocean temps seem to be associated with the thicker ice sheets.

Thankfully, the warming ocean temps and acidification seems to be better tolerated by the reefs of Indonesia, for unknown reasons.

Not exact matches

As I understand this article, the decrease in temp gradient in the cool skin layer is what allows increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations to further warm the oceans.

The only argument I've seen along those lines is the one that claims that the vast majority of the CO2 humans are emitting is sequestered in soils, oceans, etc, or used by plants, but that «naturally» warmer temps result in the release of sequestered CO2.

Given that the other important variables (sea surface temps, depth of the warm layer, and atmospheric moisture) are all predicted to increase, it seems hard to make the claim that tropical cyclones will be unchanged, just as it seemed unwise to claim that Lyman et al's «Recent cooling of the upper oceans» meant that climate models had fatal flaws.

Chris V. CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T... Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.

Henry@Willis I think to explain the phenomena of why the oceans do not get warmer than 30 - 33C When the top layer of molecules of the water in the reservoir reaches a certain temp., namely the boiling point at ruling pressure, it simply evaporates and thereby it cools the remaining liquid in the reservoir.

If there was a one off event such as an undersea eruption that warmed the ocean enough to leave a.5 c rise on the temp record, should your warming due to CO2 graph, restart at a point.5 c higher and then continue its climb?

Which conveniently ignores Science News» Oct. 5th article: Global warming hiatus tied to cooler temps in Pacific, which states «The recent pause in global warming has resulted from cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean, new simulations find.

Taking water out of this, i.e., leaving the practically 100 % nitrogen and oxygen ocean of gas, this blanket warming would give a temp of 67 °C.

With the Earth known as the «water planet» because of over 70 % of the globe covered by deep oceans, warmer temps directly result in more evaporation of the ocean water into the air - clouds.

Warmer oceans in winter lead to higher winter temps moreso than higher summer temps at the CET latitude.

Source: press release for Myers et al., 2015 Sea Levels 2 - 4 m Higher Until ~ 5,000 Years Ago Imply Surface Temps Were At Least 5 °C Warmer According to the accepted (IPCC) formula for calculating the contribution of ocean warming (thermal expansion) to sea level rise upon reaching equilibrium, every additional degrees Celsius of surface warmth yields -LSB-...]

What does this tell us about the underlying forcing causing the warmer temps duirng periods in which the atmosphere is in general getting less energy from the ocean?

The study apparently (yet presumably, because the article really doesn't say what the study found other than that it proves global warming) shows a steady rise in ocean temp.

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 oWARMING 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 owarming trend (record low arctic sea ice extent & thickness, retreating glaciers, retreating snow lines, warming ocean surface temps, increases in sea height, de-alkalinizing owarming ocean surface temps, increases in sea height, de-alkalinizing oceans).

As 34F ocean below, this would lead to a 5 deg average temp increase in the measurements for the arctic area when in fact the ocean below hasn't warmed.

That temp rise then causes something to outgas CO2 (possibly oceans, but maybe not) that then raises the temp even more (along with other GHG that feedback and enhance the warming), which causes more outgasing.

If the Ocean slowly cools with radiant heat loss to space via warmer Arctic waters and a discernible decrease in atmospheric temps the last 1.5 years since the Super El Nino of 2016, then there should be more atmospheric CO2 uptake by cooling oceans.

Since the millenium, exceptionally strong storms have prevailed globally, oceans are covering once habitable islands, Beijing is suffocating, 100 year and 150 year floods are frequent, major aquifers have been depleted (the Salton Sea is drying up), weather patterns have changed drastically, winters in the S.E.states are definitely experiencing drastically warmer averages (some areas only 10 - 14 nights of freezing temp vs. 1970 28 - 30 nights of freezing temp).

Climate Depot Analysis: «There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming» — 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim «pause» never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Watewarming» — 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim «pause» never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in WateWarming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim «pause» never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

I hate to see what's gonna happen when oceans are no longer driving warmer temps.

I can't speak for the ocean temps (I only walk on the beach, I don't go in), but August in Connecticut was very pleasant but not exceptionally warm.

What confuddles me is this... why are both the poles showing increasing ice coverage if the ocean surface temps are so warm?

the heat / energy has to go somewhere... is it any wonder the surface temps, that boundary layer between ocean / air is warm?

NASA's «GISS» temp uses land and ocean - based thermometers which measure «different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we «homogenise» our data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].»

Warmer air temperatures with ocean temperatures lagging would result in La Nina's having a relatively larger spread between water and air temps producing a stronger effect even with weak La Nina's.

Also don't understand how surface temps can be used to calculate global warming or cooling when the vast majority of climate heat is stored in the oceans.

It has been warming at TOA by 250 ZJ over the last 50 years but the ocean mean temp has only increased by 0.044 degrees in that 50.

Guess all the oceans died during the Medieval Warm Period and the rest of the 95 % of the earth's history when temps were higher.

I think this common sense fact has been used by climate scientist to announce: «Yes there is a pause in surface temp rise but the oceans are still warming, without adding.»

CO2 does not warm the oceans independent of the indirect downward longwave radiation mechanism (increased skin temp forces a «deepening» of the convective temp gradient) and the direct method of surface layer mixing.

I thought the idea was that an increase in the atmospheric radiative forcing from above would warm the skin layer a bit, reducing the temp gradient to the water layer below, thus impeding the transport of absorbed solar energy up and back out of the ocean, and thus making it pile up to increase OHC.

If we want to see if YOUR mechanism for ocean warming is working as proposed, then we need to look for a reducing temp gradient across the surface layer.

If it takes over 100 - 200 years, as some estimate, to turn over the ocean the warming of the sea surface will continue to warm the deep ocean for decades even if the sea surface temp falls as long as the surface temp remains above the moving average temp for whatever the ocean turnover rate is.

Not to mention, why do skeptics continue to ignore, dismiss, or simply «argue with» by any means possible, the far more important fact that most of the increased absorbed heat energy is going into warming the oceans, not the atmosphere (thus keeping the ambient air temp rise from registering as high as it otherwise would, and impacting FUTURE climate far more).

This would have the effect of generally dampening daytime temps but increasing nighttime temps (increased water vapour and the released CO2 from the warming oceans, acting as an insulator).

According to his research it's only solid on the surface beneath that it's completely «rotten», indicating to me that the warmer arctic ocean currents are contributing far more to the arctic ice loss that air temps.

Just reminds me of the climate gate email that is not often discussed where someone (I do nt recall who off hand) notes its good that the skeptics at least have not yet made a point yet about the discrepancy between land and ocean temps, as the land should follow the sea and can not warm at a faster rate for any physical reason.

Frankly, to me, his result is not surprising, given that the Atmospheric Temperature record (not including Ocean Temps at any depth) is a poor [edit] proxy for «global warming».