Sentences with phrase «which explains the warming»

The issue is not whether «climate denial» is right or wrong, but rather that the explanations pertaining to the greenhouse conjecture just simply don't adhere to well known physics, and ignore the physics which explains the warming of the surface by non-radiative processes.

Not exact matches

Despite the noticeably cooler nights, the days have been comfortably warm and sunny, which might explain why I am not at the point of accepting that the month is nearly over.

which when I explain how small and intimate (and warm, in a faraway land), does it make any sense how we could pull it off in just a few months.

The fishery saw unprecedented reductions in marketable wild - caught urchins after the 2014 warm blob and 2015 El Niño, which decimated kelp forests (the primary food source for urchins) throughout California,» explains Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology researcher Kirk Sato, lead author of the study.

The report, Explaining ocean warming: causes, scales, effects and consequences, which was presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii recently (5 September 2016), has found the upper depths of the world's oceans have warmed significantly since 1995.

«The result reverses understanding of solar cycle climate effects,» which had been that the sun generally warms the climate on the way up from minimum to maximum and generally cools the climate on the way down from maximum to minimum, explains atmospheric scientist Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England.

We've now found evidence of extensive river systems in the area which supports the idea that Mars was warm and wet, providing a more favourable environment for life than a cold, dry planet,» explained lead author, Joel Davis (UCL Earth Sciences).

The paper's researchers, led by U.C. Davis marine biologist Patrick Kilduff, explain that the NPGO — which is largely driven by a flavor of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that produces warming in the tropical central Pacific Ocean — has become more common in recent decades.

Polar and mid-high latitude amplification is an important signature of global warming which explains why warming is not as evident at climate stations in southern regions of the U.S. as it is in the north.

So, a statement that up to about 50 % of the warming in the last hundred years can be explained by the sun turns into at most 25 % to 35 % of the warming since 1980 can be explained by the sun in Scarfetta and West's 2006 paper, which, in any case, was debunked by RealClimate here.

And those who argue that «it's the Sun» fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they can not explain the current global warming trend.

I will after present 1D and 3D self - consistent cloud models, which allow to explain several observations of brown dwarfs, directly imaged young exoplanets and warm transiting exoplanets.

In addition to these multiple lines of empirical evidence which contradict the GCR warming theory, the galactic cosmic ray theory can not easily explain the cooling of the upper atmosphere, greater warming at night, or greater warming at higher latitudes.

One recent study examining the Palaeocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5 - 9 °C, found that «At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records» (Zeebe 2009).

Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author.

Ashtanga, a physically demanding practice that involves synchronizing the breath with near - constant movement in a prescribed series of postures, is already rich with Sun Salutations in the form of two sequences: Sun Salutation A and Sun Salutation B, which weaves in Chair Pose and Warrior I. «Surya Namaskar both focuses the mind and warms up the body to do subsequent asansas,» explains Tim Miller, director of the Ashtanga Yoga Center in Carlsbad, California.

Which means, that you will have to explain to your friends and family members, who are trying to support you, that all of your foods for the first few weeks need to be warm, moist or liquid, oily, and well spiced.

If I do classes where they start and stop alot, you have the odd 5 minutes of team grouping or info explaining, you have a warm up which starts mega slow, you have a cool down which is something akin to walking, do you consider all these breaks and slow downs as well?

In addition to following the principles for training safely during weight lifting routines, ensure, too, that you warm - up correctly and perform reps perfectly, which we explain how to do in the Strength section that is listed on the menu buttons.

«There's an even amount of both warm and cool tones, which cancel each other out to create a neutral color,» explains Meri Kate O'Connor, senior colorist and educator at Eva Scrivo Salons in New York City.

Not only it keeps you warm during the cold days of the winter, but for a magical reason, which I can't explain, it can elevate your outfit to the top.

«Class Meetings are most successful in classrooms that have a warm, caring, supportive environment — classrooms in which students feel comfortable to learn, feel safe to share their ideas, and feel free to ask questions and take risks,» explains Styles.

This Interactive Powerpoint presentation covering warm up activity, excellent slides, which explain to your students how to simplify algebraic expressions by collecting like terms and by cancelling step by step.

Tyrosinase is also temperature sensitive; it works more effectively in warmer weather, which explains the fading of the nose during winter months.

Numerous climate modeling experiments which have included the role of natural (both solar and volcanic) radiative forcing have concluded that natural forcing can not explain 20th century warming.

Stefan, Can you explain which forcings caused the warming from the years 1900 - 1945 and why it cooled so suddenly after that?

If it happens for CO2 radiative forcing, it will also happen for Solar activity - related (or any other) forcing, which thus would be equally ineffective to explain late 20th century warming.

El Nino may explain the warm temperatures which occurred later, in the mid 1930s - 1940s, but there was no El Nino in 1931.

The Paramagnetic Oxygen Transport Thesis explains the failure of Brewer - Dobson equatorial ozone formation, the Ozone Hole in 1983, continued Antarctic cold temps concurrent with Arctic warming, mid-latitude ozone formation which accelerates jet streams and elongates Rossby wave loops, and wandering magnetic poles which control extreme weather and climate change.

Here's something else which you'll probably not bother to read, a real pity, because it explains why your claim that «as water warms it can hold less gas» is not correct as it ignores the partial pressure of (in this case) CO2 in the atmosphere.

185 Judith Curry, amazing I read all this criticism stemming from Montford's book, unluckily you support these ideas, without one iota of explaining the main conclusion which is rather hard to neglect: 2010 is likely the warmest year in history despite a weaker El - Nino than 1998, and despite solar activity being extremely low.

Gavin disputes that the main driver of the sea ice retreat is the albedo flip, but we are seeing not only polar amplification of global warming but positive feedback, which would not be explained simply by radiative forces and ocean currents.

Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author.

... The research showed that somewhere around one - half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

The recent slower warming is mainly explained by the fact that in recent years the La Niña state in the tropical Pacific prevailed, in which the eastern Pacific is cold and the ocean stores more heat (2).

One thing that is for certain is that these oscillations revert to the mean over the long term, and can not be used to explain a natural secular warming trend, which is what the climate sceptics seem to be running on about recently.

There are no natural causes (solar, cosmic rays, etc.) which alone can explain the long - term warming that has occurred since the 1970s.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well - documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past.

What is most interesting is that none of the skeptics / deniers have a scientific explanation to explain the warming over the past 30 + years which has far exceeded natural influences.

Well, if we add atmospheric absorption to wavelengths just outside the first band, there could be initial cooling of lower levels and warming of upper levels as explained in 1b, which will be enhanced if this is added at shorter wavelengths (reduced if addeed at longer wavelengths) relative to where the initial atmopsheric absorption was (see 438).

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

Polar and mid-high latitude amplification is an important signature of global warming which explains why warming is not as evident at climate stations in southern regions of the U.S. as it is in the north.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/ «Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.»

In recent years the average NAO index seems to go down to neutral too (which — in part — can explain the recent warming).

One that dampens global warming — which would have to be explained by the global energy balance.

I'm pretty sure you can get the grey version of that into a strat - cooling / trop - warming situation if you pick the strat absorbers right, but Andy is certainly right that non-grey effects play a crucial role in explaining quantitatively what is going on in the real atmosphere (that's connected with the non-grey explanation for the anomalously cold tropopause which I have in Chapter 4, and also with the reason that aerosols do not produce stratospheric cooling, and everything depends a lot on what level you are looking at).

Basically you show that if no other effects occur than solar can not explain the CO2 rise (which is obvious anyway), but if other effects are important (volcanos, GHGs) then your attribution of all the warming to solar can not be valid and thus the CO2 «portion» you come up with can not possibly be that large.

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

Basically, there is no systematic trend in the modern GCR (presumably the data which is most reliable) that can explain the recent warming.

In terms of the aerosols: If you want to argue really simplistic, you could still explain what is seen in Dave's NH - SH time series: due to the larger thermal inertia of the SH, you would expect slower warming there with greenhouse gas forcing, so an increase in NH - SH early on, which would then be reduced as aerosol forcing becomes stronger in the NH.