Sentences with phrase «if mean global temperatures»

If mean global temperatures trending significantly upward over the last 100 years isn't worrying enough for you, how about that giant piece of Antarctica that is about to crack off and sink into the ocean... I don't know how the existence of global warming is still a debate!

Not exact matches

Separate research published by the Met Office today shows emissions of CO2 will need to be reduced close to zero by the end of this century if a rise in the mean global temperature beyond 2C is to be avoided.

With an El Niño now under way — meaning warm surface waters in the Pacific are releasing heat into the atmosphere — and predicted to intensify, it looks as if the global average surface temperature could jump by around 0.1 °C in just one year.

If there was a 4.5 °C global mean temperature rise, the climates in these areas are projected to become unsuitable for many the plants and animals that currently live there meaning:

Even if we could determine a «safe» level of interference in the climate system, the sensitivity of global mean temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 is known perhaps only to a factor of three or less.

If this rapid warming continues, it could mean the end of the so - called slowdown — the period over the past decade or so when global surface temperatures increased less rapidly than before.

This means that if the GCR - warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

If the temperature record does plainly show a level line of global mean air temperature for the period in question it apparently won't be «seen» by those who are dubious about my remarks.

If all of this energy went into an accumulation of temperature in the upper 100 m of the global oceans, we would see an upper mean 100 m global ocean temperature increase of 1.1 oC.»

Based on regional studies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that 20 — 30 % of the world's species are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 — 3 °C above pre-industrial levels [6], while Thomas et al. [5] predicted that 15 — 37 % of species could be «committed to extinction» due to climate change by 2050.

If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades.

The combination of these factors means it's much easier to interpolate anomalies and estimate the global mean, than it would be if you were averaging absolute temperatures.

How much UHI contamination remains in the global mean temperatures has been tested in papers such as Parker (2005, 2006) which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm days.

This doesn't address longer causal connections, but if the net impact of temperature on CO2 can be shown to be neutral or in the negative direction over then long term, than cointegration probably means that CO2 is causing global warming.

Note that if we were only looking at the global mean temperature, there would be quite a lot of wiggle room for different contributions.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

If I've understood you correctly you want to tell the people that the mean temperature increased by 1.5 C and that it follows that 1.5 C of the 7.5 C heat wave is due to global warming and the rest is «natural».

Given 1 and 2, it would be astonishing if the global mean surface temperature of the Earth had not increased.

If you want a really really simple statistical climate model, try correlating global mean annual temperature & / or sea level with the CO2 data from Mauna Loa.

This applies if the pieces are parts of the global temperature and the whole is the global mean, or if the parts are individual models and the whole is all models thrown together (mathematically)-- the latter being especially specious in my mind.

By implication, if we had not been disingenuous then global mean temperature would be just fine as an indicator.

If you're talking about global mean temperature I would advise you to compare the projections of the IPCC to the actual measurements of GISS as well as HadCRUT, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU measured data.

If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record - breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

It therefore makes no sense to only attribute changes from after the point of detection since you'll miss the first 2 sigma of the change... Similarly, we can still calculate the forced component of a change even if it isn't the only thing going on, and indeed, before it is statistically detectable in the global mean temperature anomaly.

I do think that we humans are needlessly speeding things along, but do not think that even if we get the global mean temperature increase below 2 degrees that we can not or will not have widespread droughts and potential world catastrophes in terms of both weather and climate.

re Gavin @ 223 I know what the mean global temperature is (actually, I don't, see below) but the question was why is this a meaningful metric for looking at changes over time, when you could get the same global mean from very different distributions of temperature (eg increase the poles, decrease the tropics) which would have very different interpretations of energy balance (at least if I am right that humidity matters)?

As Isaac says, global mean precipitation is a less useful summary statistic than global mean temperature, if you are interested in what life will be like in a doubled CO2 world.

If the CRF were so important (and the cloud response near - instantaneous) why do we not see more pronounced ~ 11 - year variations in the global mean temperature?

However, with the price of food rising much faster than the global mean temperature, I suppose it is really not terribly surprising that financial analysts would seize on the potential catastrophe that is most immediate (especially if there are no major energy companies waging a campaign to confuse the issue).

[Response I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but if you feel that you can only assess whether temperatures are changing by looking at 30 - year averages, consider the following: Global mean temperature anomalies (in degrees C, relative to 1961 - 90 reference period): 1885 - 1914: -0.35; 1915 - 1944: -0.18; 1945 - 1974: -0.07; 1975 - 2004: +0.21.

Climate hawks would similarly balk if someone looked at the cool temperatures we have in New York today and argue that means global warming isn't a problem.

If we look at the global annual mean temperature anomaly time series (as derived from the University of East Angliaâ??

Specifically, if sulphur emissions as estimated in Stern D. I. (2005) «Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000», Chemosphere 58, 163 - 175 and the database supporting that paper are substituted for those that were used to produce the SRES and / or ABARE projections, what is the effect on the global mean temperature up to now, and the projected increase between now andGlobal sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000», Chemosphere 58, 163 - 175 and the database supporting that paper are substituted for those that were used to produce the SRES and / or ABARE projections, what is the effect on the global mean temperature up to now, and the projected increase between now andglobal mean temperature up to now, and the projected increase between now and 2030?

The prediction remained the same as the Academy panel had found in 1979 (and as computer modelers continued to find into the 21st century): if the CO2 level doubled, mean global temperature would rise 3 °C, give or take a degree or two.

My question as reformulated was the one that I would have asked in the first place if I had realised that your reference to «warming [which] has been observed» related to changes in mean temperature at the global level.

If global temperature has no agreed scientific meaning, it is meaningless, then measuring it seems pointless.

I'd be particularly interested in your view on the question whether, if sulphate concentrations have been as low as A1T projects for 2030 during the past decade, you would have expected global mean temperatures to have risen more than they have.

But if the MWP was restricted to mild local warming, it would mean that present - day global warming is unprecedented for the past 1,000 years, as claimed by climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, in his famous «hockey stick» global temperature reconstruction3.

I won't repeat that argument here, but it is not a given that the global mean flux is just a function of the global mean temperature — what if it is linear in both tropical and high latitude temperatures, but with different constants of proportionality?

«And as for the temperature itself, it is striking, [Gore] made his previous film 10 years ago and — according, again, to the official figures — during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined.»

If you wonder how, it makes use of the fact that the midpoint between an El Nino peak and the bottom of its neighboring La Nina valley defines global mean temperature.

If you wonder how I know, it makes use of the fact that the midpoint between an El Nino peak and the bottom of its neighboring La Nina valley defines global mean temperature.

If the global temperature isn't changing — that means the land temperature should be slightly cooling (if anything)If the global temperature isn't changing — that means the land temperature should be slightly cooling (if anything)if anything)..

If the model is accurate enough, then the model run with the realization of the stochastic process that most matches the future record ought to be a reasonably accurate model for the evolution the mean global temperature.

Oh, and specifically it's no longer useful to cite Doran 2009 which asked if «human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures».

If global mean temperature measurements during the next several years continue to significantly miss the IPCC forecast this severely undercuts IPCC basis for the past 25 years and therefore the entire raison d'etre of the IPCC.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basisIf you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basisif my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we'd still have to explain the land blip...» — Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008

The deep meaning in Global Temperature for me is the wondrous observation that, in order for life to evolve on planet earth, over four billion years, it seems as if we have never been either completely ice - free or without some open water across the oceans.

Geologist Dr. David Deming: «If the current cooling trend continues, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction» — Deming: «The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years» — «Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills»