Sentences with phrase «when atmospheric heating»

With current greenhouse gas levels now in the range of 400 - 405 parts per million coinciding with substantial jumps in glacial melt and sea level rise, it may be worth taking a look back at times in the geological past when atmospheric heating conditions were similar to those seen today.

Not exact matches

Scientists finally confirmed this hypothesis in the 1960s when it became possible to develop adequate models of solar atmospheric heating.

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect.

Turning up the heat seems to increase the rate at which the plants produce methane, Keppler says, which could explain why atmospheric levels of methane were high hundreds of thousands of years ago when global temperatures were balmy.

«Once you have that combination of ocean heat and atmospheric heat — which are related — that's when the ice sheet could really experience dramatic ice mass loss.»

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

And no, there is no huge plunge in tropical or global surface air temperatures when the ocean circulation spins up because there is a near - compensating decrease in poleward heat transport via the atmospheric circulation.

There are multiple non-radiative energy fluxes at the surface (latent and sensible heat fluxes predominantly) which obviously affect the atmospheric temperature profiles, but when it comes to outer paces, that flux is purely radiative.

And the other sort of latent heat, a decrease in atmospheric water vapour is also the stuff of fantasy requiring a change of 50,000 cu km when the atmosphere only contains (and only can contain) ~ 13,000 cu km without crazy temperature increases.

However, when heated to temperatures of over 705 °F and pressures of more than 3200 pounds per square inch (psi; atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi at sea level), water enters a unique, supercritical phase.

I'm a phsycist - and I remember being highly skeptical about AGW when I first heard about it in the late 80's - reasoning that the ocean was such an enormous heat sink that any impact on atmospheric temperatures would be dwarfed by the impact on increased heat content in the ocean.

For as much as atmospheric temperatures are rising, the amount of energy being absorbed by the planet is even more striking when one looks into the deep oceans and the change in the global heat content (Figure 4).

This vast emission has spiked atmospheric CO2 and CO2e (when all other heat trapping gasses are included) levels to above 400 parts per million and 481 parts per million respectively.

If we continue emitting large amounts of CO2 while we work towards converting to 3/4 solar power and survive the heating that we inadvertently speed up by reflecting more heat into an atmosphere already overburdened with reflective - heat - capturing CO2, some day in the future when the atmospheric CO2 returns to its natural percentage of 0.0300 % instead of today's extremely high 0.03811 % the world will cool down to the levels that nature intended.

How hurricanes develop also depends on how the local atmosphere responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, and this atmospheric response depends critically on the cause of the change.23, 24 For example, the atmosphere responds differently when local sea surface temperatures increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, versus when sea surface temperatures increase more uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of human - caused heat - trapping gases.25, 26,27,28

The identified atmospheric feedbacks including changes in planetary albedo, in water vapour distribution and in meridional latent heat transport are all poorly represented in zonal energy balance model as the one used in [7] whereas they appear to be of primary importance when focusing on ancient greenhouse climates.

«To better monitor Earth's energy budget and its consequences, the ocean is most important to consider because the amount of heat it can store is extremely large when compared to the land or atmospheric capacity,» said Yan.

They will go on gaining heat until the radiative balance is restored, and this happens when the sea surface temperature has increased sufficiently for it to shed more heat to space through the longwave atmospheric window.

When oceans are carrying heat deeper below the surface, then the atmospheric heat is removed by transference processes of wind, current and radiative transfer.

Not all at once of course, but as mentioned above, when the PDO goes positive, we can likely expect a significant change in the atmospheric heat content as heat energy is transferred from the deep oceans back into the atmosphere.

How hurricanes develop also depends on how the local atmosphere responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, and this atmospheric response depends critically on the cause of the change.23, 24 For example, the atmosphere responds differently when local sea surface temperatures increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, versus when sea surface temperatures increase more uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of human - caused heat - trapping gases.18, 25,26,27 So the link between hurricanes and ocean temperatures is complex.

Worse, every rise in atmospheric temperature is taken by AGW «science» to indicate warming, when in many cases, it merely is a sign that additional heat is exposed to the 4 degree Kelvin temperature of outer space, resulting in higher radiative losses.

Wait until next week when we find out that atmospheric CO2 molecules exchange tachyon particles so that heat absorbance today heats the air in the future, which explains why we have hidden heat, a pause and why climate sensitivity appears to be lower than the 8.73 degrees it really is.

Obviously when two oxygen atoms are coupled to a carbon atom it now acts as a pseudo-Tachyon; a carbon atom knows when it is going to be oxidized in the future and it knows the future atmospheric temperature equilibrium point, so while not bound to oxygen suck up heat and then store it and then when burnt, wait a few decades, and release the heat they have been storing up while sitting in coal veins or in oil formations.

Extra heat of this kind would also tend to enhance precipitation extremes — more rain when it does rain and far more intense drought in areas affected by heat and atmospheric ridging.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

So why do we only ever hear about the heat retaining properties of the atmosphere when the true cause of the Earth having the atmospheric temperature it has is not the atmosphere at all but the oceans?

After all CO2 is itself only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases so that it can not have any significant long term effect when the water vapour primarily affecting atmospheric heat retention is in turn itself but a tiny proportion of global heat retaining capacity when one adds in the vastly greater oceanic heat retaining effect.

Steve — I have stated multiple times that the climatologists are all gathered under the lamppost as its light there — using atmospheric temperature when they should be measuring atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram taking account of the enthalpy.

It is also when we have increasingly good measures of atmospheric temperature, ocean heat content, and the various agents that warm and cool the climate.

Between 1910 and 1940 global atmospheric temperature rose by 0.5 C (probably due to increased CO2 concentration), we should not be surprised when this heat reappears 40 years later in the oceans.

An atmospheric vortex engine (AVE) uses a controlled vortex to capture mechanical energy produced when heat is carried upward by convection in the atmosphere.

They make up the difference by assuming 333 W / m ^ 2 LW RF measured by «pyrgeometers» pointing to the atmosphere («back radiation») provides extra surface heat when standard physics shows for a normal temperature gradient, an atmospheric RF can't transfer any energy to the surface.

However, it is likely that at night (when there is no incoming solar energy) or at other times when atmospheric conditions are such that there is a temperature inversion, any LWIR that has been delayed has sufficient opportunity to radiate to space there by meaning that no excess heat is «trapped» (ie., the heat in the atmosphere does not build up).

Any actual heating from the «atmospheric greenhouse effect» may vanish in the same way that the real greenhouse effect does when the windows to the greenhouse are opened.