Sentences with phrase «given a temperature anomaly»

A linear extrapolation over 1880 - 1980 of the GISTEMP meteorological station series gives a temperature anomaly of 0.2 K in 2012, much lower than the lowest curve drawn.

Using the known amplification of the solar cycle (and presumably the long term trend) in the UV band, allowing stratospheric temperatures and circulation patterns to adjust and including the direct radiative forcings from the sun and volcanoes, we found that it gave temperature anomalies and spatial patterns that were in fair agreement with the observations (Shindell et al, 2003).

A linear extrapolation over 1880 - 1980 of the GISTEMP meteorological station series gives a temperature anomaly of 0.2 K in 2012, much lower than the lowest curve drawn.

Given a temperature anomaly of 0.6 C which is about right for SST, the excess forcing required is about 1.6 watts / m ^ 2.

It gives temperature anomalies of +0.1 C for 1979 and and +0.43 for 2008, an increase of 0.33 for that 30 year period and 0.11 C per decade.

Not exact matches

The simple question of whether the medieval period was warm or cold is not particularly interesting — given the uncertainty in the forcings (solar and volcanic) and climate sensitivity, any conceivable temperature anomaly (which remember is being measured in tenths of a degree) is unlikely to constrain anything.

Given that we're mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario.

Anomalies in sea surface temperature can be used to forecast the length and intensity of the June Gloom phenomenon in a given season.

Which happens to give respectable values for ocean heat anomalies for last few decades when forced by ocean temperatures.

Sorry I should have been more precise in my previous post and given UAH SH land temperature anomalies: Jul: +0.26 C Aug: -0.56 C Sep: +0.24 C http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt I don't have the RSS figures to hand but they won't be very different in any event.

As a final step, after all station records within 1200 km of a given grid point have been averaged, we subtract the 1951 - 1980 mean temperature for the grid point to obtain the estimated temperature anomaly time series of that grid point.

Given that we're mainly looking at the global mean surface temperature anomaly, the most appropriate comparison is for the net forcings for each scenario.

So, if you are ever tempted to give or ask for absolute values for global temperatures with the precision of the anomaly, just don't do it!

For those bloggers who like to check the numbers for themselves, the above web page gives the GLOBAL MONTHLY LAND TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES per NCDC / NOAA.

Observational errors on any one annual mean temperature anomaly estimate are around 0.1 deg C, and the errors from the linear fits are given in the text.

I guess the anomaly is calculated by subtracting te long - year average temperature from the measured average of any given year.

The chart I linked to shows how the disingenuous CAGW Alarmists use a MICROSCOPE to plot the FRACTION OF A DEGREE vertical scale vs. YEARS or even HUNDREDS of years to give an extremely SKEWED scaling to IMPLY a HUGE variation in temperature anomalies over time where there is NOT one.

The maximum temperature anomaly and the temperature anomaly after 10,000 years are given on the upper x axis.

(c) The global mean (80 ° N to 80 ° S) radiative signature of upper - tropospheric moistening is given by monthly time series of combinations of satellite brightness temperature anomalies (°C), relative to the period 1982 to 2004, with the dashed line showing the linear trend of the key brightness temperature in °C per decade.

My last viewgraph shows global maps of temperature anomalies for a particular month, July, for several different years between 1986 and 2029, as computed with out global climate model for the intermediate trace gas scenario B.... In any given month [in the 1980s], there is almost as much area that is cooled than normal as there is area warmer than normal.

But I think that the various anomaly time series with a common time base and the absolute temperature added back into the respective anomaly time series, would clearly expose the denier BIG LIE since it has become quite obvious that the satellite and land surface datasets, while interesting to compare (given we only see anomaly time series comparisons) are in fact measuring two entirely different sets of temperatures (surface vs a few KM above the surface).

The Dome C temperature anomaly record with respect to the mean temperature of the last millennium8 (based on original deuterium data interpolated to a 500 - yr resolution), plotted on the EDC3 timescale13, is given as a black step curve.

Given the fact the the bulk of the energy in the TOA imbalance is getting stored in the ocean, yet temperature anomalies over the ocean are less than over the land, for the above stated reasons, the global combined land and ocean (that is, air over the ocean) temperature anomalies actually tend to greatly understate to a the actual effects of the anthropogenic caused TOA anomaly.

Given the large uncertainties in forcings and model inadequacies (including a factor of 2 difference in CO2 sensitivity), how is it that each model does a credible job of tracking the 20th century global surface temperature anomalies (AR4 Figure 9.5)?

Looking at the CO2 versus land temperature trend, if the anomaly remains at between 0.8 to 1C for the next several years, it would still give a 3C sensitivity for CO2 doubling.

Given the context of this highly anomalous and extremely persistent atmospheric ridging over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, it's very interesting to note that there has also been a region of strongly positive sea surface temperature anomalies in same the general vicinity for the past 10 - 11 months.

Drought always causes higher temperatures, but curiously they also reported that given the lack of rainfall the high temperatures were not as high as expected writing, «The scatter plot shows that 2012 was the driest summer in the historical record, though the temperature anomaly of +2 °C was exceeded by two prior summers — 1934 and 1936.

You are deliberately obfuscating the point that NOAA did not calculate anomalies and gave out absolute temperatures.

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

This annual temperature anomaly trend (red) gives clearer context to the Lansner chart (green).

So, given that the greenhouse gas, water vapour makes the temperature gradient less steep, maybe you'd care to explain this strange anomaly, Roy.

But if as Kevin Trenberth argues that for every «1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall», then the science is correct about AGW and the sceptics are just raving on.

They applied a correction of 0.12 C to the buoy data but given we are looking at temperature anomalies, it could have been equally applied by reducing the ship intake data by 0.12 C.

NASA's geographic temperature anomalies map gives us a sense of the distribution of this extreme and record global heat.

For the HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP temperature anomaly series, was estimated using a Politis - Romano stationary bootstrap (because the series data are interdependent) giving.

I have problems giving any credence to the land temperature anomalies, seems to be an incredible precision of measurement & calculation claimed, compared to the data, the shifting mean global temperature, the fogging around this value.

Since the average land temperature is lower and dryer than the SST, warming and cooling anomalies are larger for a given amount of energy transfer from the oceans, latent and sensible.

That is, if a 5 - deg latitude by 5 - deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4.

My only purpose in presenting the RSS 1979 - 2007 temperature anomaly series here, and as something of an aside to the discussion, was to give a basis for comparison to what David S was proposing with Rybski's methods for LTP.

(C) The probability that a negative precipitation anomaly and a positive temperature anomaly equal to or exceeding a given magnitude occur in the same 12 - mo period, for all possible 12 - mo periods (using a 12 - mo running mean; see Materials and Methods), for varying severity of anomalies.

Note also that global warming is always given in temperature anomalies.

We do not know with any precision what the actual mean temperature of the planet is at any given time and most of the figures given here are various guesstimations of the «anomaly» (variation from estimated mean for the time of year over some period of the very recent past, commonly 1951 - 1980 but not always).

(See NCDC Global Surface Temperature Anomalies) The same file states «The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1880 to 2004 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that moTemperature Anomalies) The same file states «The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1880 to 2004 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that motemperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1880 to 2004 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that motemperature for that month.»

In the Mann version of historic climate there is very limited variation either side of a mean anomaly, which gave rise to a limited MWP, generally substantially cooler than today, with gently declining temperatures throughout the period from 1400 to 1900, coupled with a lesser impact of the «Little Ice Age» than had previously been accepted.

But given what is known, he said «there is every reason to believe that the trend toward greater variability, larger anomalies, is true for precipitation as well as temperature.»

Anomaly in many cases does not do justice to the size of the temperature differential between actual and a given base period.

-LRB-!!!!!!) Only thing missins when working with anomalies and not absolute temperatures is... the nowledge of absolute temperatures for a given time.

At the very least, potential exists for unusually far southward extent of some wintry precipitation for late March... given cold sector temperature anomalies of 10 - 25 degrees Fahrenheit below normal.

Eyeballing Fig 8 and assuming a land / ocean anomaly temperature coincidence at 1960 (this may be reasonable given the population growth and urbanisation since that date) gives gives an anomaly difference of 0.5 Deg C to 2008.

One confounding issue I have in trying to understand energy flows is the way the temperature is always given as the anomaly — usually on a monthly basis.