Sentences with phrase «earth surface temperature papers»

Now Eli, to be sure, really doesn't know what is going on between Richard Muller and Judy Curry, but this he does know, Judy is listed as an author on all of the five Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature papers, and the papers have been submitted for review (given some of the comments at places like Tamino and Real Climate, they are going to be improved before published).

Not exact matches

For their paper, published in Applied Geography, researchers at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Battelle Memorial Institute studied air temperature data from weather stations, land surface temperatures measured by satellites and socioeconomic data.

Additionally, the paper supports the theory that heat storage in the deep ocean may be partly responsible for the parallel pause in Earth's surface temperatures over the past 13 years.

Pierre, could you comment on what, exactly, is new in the recent Philipona paper, compared with the two similar papers they published last year («Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land», «Radiative forcing — measured at Earth's surface — corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect»)?

The Science paper was part of a large effort by Karl and others at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, as well as climate analytics specialist James McMahon of LMI Consulting, to develop the most accurate possible record of the Earth's surface temperature, based on thermometers.

The new paper, «A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011,» has been posted, along with extensive related material, including a list of responses to frequent questions, including these:

The key points of the paper are that: i) model simulations with 20th century forcings are able to match the surface air temperature record, ii) they also match the measured changes of ocean heat content over the last decade, iii) the implied planetary imbalance (the amount of excess energy the Earth is currently absorbing) which is roughly equal to the ocean heat uptake, is significant and growing, and iv) this implies both that there is significant heating «in the pipeline», and that there is an important lag in the climate's full response to changes in the forcing.

That paper appears to have taken the long established science involving gravity and the Gas Laws and refined it so as to show that the AGW theory relating to the supposed radiative capabilities of so called greenhouse gases is incorrect and unnecessary as an explanation for Earth's surface temperature.

3 Atmospheric Scientists: Greenhouse Effect Based On «Physically Irrelevant Assumptions» Yet another new scientific paper has been published that questions the current understanding of the Earth's globally averaged surface temperature and its relation to the theoretical greenhouse effect.

As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).

This analysis is in the paper «Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States», available here.

Figure 3 in the paper by Judith Lean indicates that the cyclical amplitude of Earth's surface temperature is about 0.1 K, so the solar variational effect is not significant.

Richard Muller is the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which has just made available a preliminary paper (not yet having passed the peer - review process) regarding the causes of the recent global warming.

Because while adhering to procedure he allowed the Spencer and Braswell paper «On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance» to be published, as it should have been published.

On the new paper «On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth's Radiant Energy Balance» By Spencer and Braswell 2011 and the subsequent Reuters headline «New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism»

«The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project»

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American's Michael Lemonick in «Science Talk», said:

Congrats on your recent paper «On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth's Radiant Energy Balance» By Spencer and Braswell 2011.

Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)-- that is, how much the earth's average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

We have two new entries to the long (and growing) list of papers appearing the in recent scientific literature that argue that the earth's climate sensitivity — the ultimate rise in the earth's average surface temperature from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content — is close to 2 °C, or near the low end of the range of possible values presented by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The abstract is here and a preprint version of the paper is available from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature website here.

In a paper, «Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System» soon to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (and discussed briefly at RealClimate a few weeks back), Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory estimates climate sensitivity using observed 20th - century data on ocean heat content and global surface temperature.

The Activist teacher paper asserts: «It is a violation of Kirchoff's Law to admit -LCB- a -RCB- = 0.30 yet use -LCB- ε -RCB- = 1 in calculating the Earth's surface temperature, irrespective of the assumed amount of greenhouse effect.»

It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: «the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth's Radiant Energy Balance» (leaving out the «On»).»

But the heart of his paper is the construction from published metereological data of a table of mean temperature and relative and absolute humidity for the surface of the earth between 60 degrees south and 70 degrees north.

At that point the surface temperature of Earth will be well above the ignition temperature not only of paper but of all carbon - based compounds, turning them all into the gas CO2.

The paper's title «On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance» is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors.

The paper (HYPERLINKED) and Excel spreadsheet («CO2 vs T»)(HYPERLINKED) show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth's Surface Temperature by ~ 9 months.

In 1994 Lindzen stated his thoughts concerning the constraints on the spatial temperature distribution at the Earth's surface in a paper he co-authored with Sun.

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth's surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office * Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation * Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data * After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST * New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic * We will all be left with a slightly - warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.