Sentences with phrase «warming effect within»

Throughout the period 1961 to about 2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect within the oceans from the sun.

Also, regardless of WHERE / HOW CO2 is produced; the actual properties of this molecule will NOT produce a warming effect within the situation presented within the Atmosphere.

Not exact matches

Anyhow, upon everyone getting located and the warmed justifications eliminated, is where the film encounter of Until Beginning truly begins.The story and activities within Until Beginning are centered around disorder concept and the idea of the Butterfly Effect.

But these severe winters may be a temporary phase within longer term warming: By the end of the century, the researchers report, the Arctic Oscillation could overpower the cooling effect from WACE — and winter temperatures over Eurasia will gradually increase.

Within nations, local effects of global warming will cause internecine fights for increasingly scarce water.

While the measured kidney injury resolved within two days post-marathon, the study still raises questions about the effects of repeated strenuous activity over time, especially in warm climates.

If convection and evaporation were not present, I could see the argument being made that a slight increase in Radiation having some warming effect, however convection and evaporation do exist within the Troposphere and the rate of cooling the two exhibit increases as surface temps increase.

«As the seas warm because of our effect on the climate, bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef and other areas within the Coral Sea are likely to become more frequent and more devastating,» the team of Australian university scientists wrote Thursday in The Conversation, announcing the results of the analysis.

Regardless, I would posit the worsening winter ice formation is as expected given the poles suffer first and winters warm faster than summers, BUT that this is happening within two years of the EN peak, which was my time line in 2015, one wonders if the combination of warm EN - heated Pacific waters (oceans move slowly) and warm air are a trailing edge of the EN effect OR this is signallibg a phase change driven by that EN, or is just an extreme winter event.

On the other hand, another effect of global warming, namely massive, continent - wide, intense, persistent drought, could begin at any time and have catastrophic effects on agriculture, leading to widespread famine within a few years.

Within reason, a heat deficit in the ocean is made up by a larger transfer of energy from ocean to land, which has the side - effect of producing amplification of land warming.

Because of my belief in global warming and its effects, you could not sell me a piece of property within 3 meters of sea level.

But that's just it, Paul, within the scientific community anthropogenic causation of increasing greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas - induced warming, and potential climate effects and impacts of increased warming are accepted science.

We present scientific evidence that any effect which reduces the slope of the vertical temperature profile within a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a warm bias, while any process that increases the magnitude of the slope of the vertical temperature profile in a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a cool bias, remains a robust finding based on boundary layer dynamics.»

Upward concentration of that source of flux to space would, in isolation, have a cooling effect within the upper portion of that region and a warming effect just below that.

Keeping within a sufficiently small range of wavelengths that the effects discussed in 438 can be set aside, What such band widenning would do, without a surface temperature increase, is simply increase the range of wavelengths at which the same temperature variation accomplishes the same spectral fluxes through the band, thus not changing OLR within the band — the warming that results from such band - widenning should thus tend to increase the OLR within the band.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

What climate models assume is a wide - ranging compendium of physical processes that are either well known but too complicated to incorporate into the climate model (for example the direct radiational effect of Carbon Dioxide on greenhouse warming is considerably * simplified * compared to the most sophisticated «line - by - line» radiation models that are available, simply because there isn't enough computer power to make the line - by - line calculation at every location on Earth at every time step within in a GCM), or are not sufficiently well - known to treat them with complete certainty.

A different perspective on the same problem: (try expanding your views a little) THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: The is no argument that extra GHG absorbtion causes warming within the radiative transport mechanism.

The uncertainty is whether this, when applied to the real world, is a trivial effect (say the lowest outlier position), if there is a couple of degrees warming coming (an average position, where warming will have some observable effects within a decade or two) or 5 + deg C (the highest outlier position, where significant and rapid change would occur, and where detrimental effects probably significantly outweigh beneficial ones).

«Within that butterfly - effect - like chaos, Gutzler said it's possible that the predictive climate models scientists use are partially wrong — not about the fact that the planet is warming, but about how, when, and where that warming will occur.»

Even the most pronounced warming, evident from the cities of Hobart and Melbourne, is within what could be considered natural — though the trends shown here are likely to be artificially exaggerated by the method of measuring temperature since 1996 ** (electronic probes) and the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

It is seen that ONLY Photons within the Visible AND the Lower UV Spectrum are (and can be) surface incident on a persistent basis with sufficient Energy to effect the warming that is noticed.

The potential effects of such processes were taken to the extreme in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, in which floating meltwater produced by warming climate caused the North Atlantic to freeze over almost instantly, in turn locking much of the United States in ice within days.

There exists a particular science experiment that is done within primary, middle and secondary schools that purports to prove that there actually is a carbon dioxide and water vapor caused «greenhouse effect» in the greater atmosphere that is causing global warming.

The article starts by making this statement, «There exists a particular science experiment that is done within primary, middle and secondary schools that purports to prove that there actually is a carbon dioxide and water vapor caused «greenhouse effect» in the greater atmosphere that is causing global warming.»

the current rate of warming threatens to seriously undermine the functioning of biomes and ecosystems through uneven effects on species within tightly interacting food webs.

One effect among many is to reduce the temperature gradient within the skin layer of the ocean and hence reduce the rate of cooling of the upper mixed layer (the first few meters of which are warmed by the Sun) to the atmosphere and also, radiatively, through the atmospheric infrared window, directly to space.

Becoming embedded in planning processes, integrated within existing programs such as disaster risk management and water management, adaptation strategies are increasingly being adopted to mitigate the effect of global warming on humans.

While it is true that warmer temperatures can produce heavier snow — as anyone who lives within range of lake - effect snow, which mostly falls before the Great Lakes freeze over or become too cold to generate the condensation responsible for heavy snow, can attest — we have been seeing both heavier snow and colder temperatures, both in the United States and in Europe, and not merely this winter, but for a number of winters running.

Most of the «future» effect is already «dialed in», it is the observation of delayed effect that is being given «regard» as a «greenhouse issue», even as the «greenhouse effect» is seen as not possible, or that «greenhouse warming amplification» is not evidenced within possible surface incident energy (as Photons).

But a new study published in the journal Science Advances has concluded that another impact of global climate change might help coral reefs survive increasing sea temperatures: «even a modest sea level rise can substantially reduce temperature extremes within tide - dominated reefs, thereby partially offsetting the local effects of future ocean warming,» the authors of the study write.

Climate hard - liners in developing countries have long argued that keeping global temperatures to a 2 degree C rise over pre-industrial levels was simply too hot, and would risk unleashing many of the worst destabilizing impacts of global warming — including perhaps the triggering of cascading effects and warming amplifications within nature, such as the melting of Arctic permafrost, that could release more greenhouse gases and push temperatures even higher.

As the New York Times noted in a front - page story, the EPA report was the first time a Federal agency had declared that global warming was «not a theoretical problem but a threat whose effects will be felt within a few years.»

According to Black's article on BBC online: «The panel's scientists say the reversal needs to come within a decade or so if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided.»

In effect the evaporation sucks energy from the oceans against the thermal gradient within the ocean bulk and despite the warming of the topmost molecules caused by infra red radiation and then expels it to the air in the form of latent heat carried by water vapour.

Kate's phrasing might be better put as that the effect of greenhouse gases means «more heat is re-radiated within the lower atmosphere making it warmer, and more is radiated out of the stratosphere making it cooler» or something like that.

I had not even paid attention to claims of global warming myself before late 2009 (I don't know if I even heard of it before that), yet within a year I had disproved the «greenhouse effect» being foisted upon the people of the world as «settled science», and shown that climate scientists should have done the same 20 years ago, if any had been competent in their field.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).

The bulk of the warming or cooling effect from a change in forcing is realized within a decade or two.

... There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.

If convection and evaporation were not present, I could see the argument being made that a slight increase in Radiation having some warming effect, however convection and evaporation do exist within the Troposphere and the rate of cooling the two exhibit increases as surface temps increase.

Given the effects we are already seeing from the warming that has already occurred due to the GHGs we have already emitted, at this point it is very difficult for me to imagine any plausible course of events which does NOT result in the collapse of human civilization under the onslaught of AGW within a few decades at most.

For example, the argument that follows very substantially from the extent of continental shelf that there is within the Arctic Basin and, therefore, the particular relationship that warming on that relatively shallow sea has on trapped methane - for example, the emergence of methane plumes in that continental shelf, apparently in quite an anomalous way - leading possibly to the idea that there may be either tipping points there or catastrophic feedback mechanisms there, which could then have other effects on things, such as more stabilised caps like the Greenland ice cap and so on.

When you consider even the most extreme claim for the global warming effect of human CO2, it is within the error of the estimate of almost every single variable.

In addition to Adrian Burd's recommendation, Al should read the comprehensive review by Wild: «Global dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would have it.