However,
temperature estimates derived from tetraethers in modern soils from Svalbard, Norway (MAT ≈ — 4 °C) were within 2 °C of instrumental temperature records (MAT ≈ — 6 °C), suggesting that tetraethers are an effective proxy for reconstructing temperatures from paleosols at high latitudes (Peterse et al., 2009).
Temperature estimates derived from tetraether composition may be more representative of summer processes when temperatures are higher and soils have greater water content, promoting the facultative anaerobic bacteria that are hypothesized to synthesize tetraether lipids (Weijers et al., 2007).
Not exact matches
They weren't
estimating or extrapolating from lab experiments — they were applying the laws of fundamental quantum mechanics to
derive iron's properties at extreme pressures and
temperatures.
Currently, the most common practices for
estimating sex ratios from nesting beaches use nest
temperature, beach
temperatures, or incubation duration and empirically
derived relationships from laboratory data.
We measure equivalent widths of spectral features,
derive calibration relations using stars with interferometric measurements, and
estimate stellar radii, effective
temperatures, masses, and luminosities for the K2 planet hosts.
We
derived the Lbol of the components and compared them with theoretical evolutionary models to
estimate the masses and effective
temperatures.
# 177, # 100) were queries requesting what do «the models» look like with respect to MSU (mid-troposphere satellite
derived)
temperature estimates?
This was a relatively stable climate (for several thousand years, 20,000 years ago), and a period where we have reasonable
estimates of the radiative forcing (albedo changes from ice sheets and vegetation changes, greenhouse gas concentrations (
derived from ice cores) and an increase in the atmospheric dust load) and
temperature changes.
I'm thinking for example of how we modeled a basic
estimate of evapotranspiration using the
temperature gradient
derived from a surface and 1.5 meter
temperature reading.
We compared simulated
temperature of the past millennium
derived by driving theoretical climate models with
estimated natural (volcanic + solar) and anthropogenic forcings for the past millennium.
Their approach requires an
estimate of the forced global mean
temperature in a given year (excluding any natural variability), which are
derived from Otto et al (2015), who employ a regression approach to reconstruct a prediction of global mean
temperatures as a function of anthropogenic and natural forcing agents.
To
estimate uncertainty in total committed rise given some
temperature increase, we use the
derived Antarctic intervals, plus the ranges for the first three SLR components as shown in figure 2 A — C of ref.
When he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface
temperatures with major past cooling and absurd
derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major
estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibility.
He
derives a simple model to
estimate the
temperature anomaly as a function of the derivative of CO2 concentration:
MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting the instrumental thermometer - based land surface
temperature observations, such as satellite -
derived temperature trend
estimates over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that can not conceivably be subject to the non-climatic sources of bias considered by them.
It is my understanding that he
derived these results from his knowledge of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour (and not by curve fitting to observations, though he had also carried out his own
estimates of changes in global
temperature.)
The confusion resulting from skewing trends is summarized in a recent study that concluded their «results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global
temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4 °C and 0.7 °C, where these two values are the
estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.»
On this basis (and with some model -
derived feedback
estimates based on theoretical considerations plus some model - based assumptions on increase of human GHGs over time) IPCC has projected future changes in global average
temperature and resulting impacts on our environment.
Using an effective ocean diffusivity of 0.65 cm ^ 2 / s (which is the central
estimate derived in the Forest 06 study), the surface
temperature response to a step forcing increase reaches about 90 % of its ultimate level within 25 years, if I've got everythng right.
Estimates of natural variability from an AOGCM provide a critical input in deriving, by comparing temperature estimates from the simple model with observations, a likelihood function for the parameters jointly at each possible combination of parameter settings (and in one or two cases AOGCMs provide surrogates for some of the observation
Estimates of natural variability from an AOGCM provide a critical input in
deriving, by comparing
temperature estimates from the simple model with observations, a likelihood function for the parameters jointly at each possible combination of parameter settings (and in one or two cases AOGCMs provide surrogates for some of the observation
estimates from the simple model with observations, a likelihood function for the parameters jointly at each possible combination of parameter settings (and in one or two cases AOGCMs provide surrogates for some of the observational data).
Finally, passive microwave brightness
temperatures from various satellite platforms have been extensively used to
derive estimates of sea ice concentration.
Between 801 and 1800 ce, the surface cooling trend is qualitatively consistent with an independent synthesis of terrestrial
temperature reconstructions, and with a sea surface
temperature composite
derived from an ensemble of climate model simulations using best
estimates of past external radiative forcings.
For earlier times, we adopt Greenland
temperature estimated as follows (33): For the period 128,700 B.P. to 340,000 B.P., this
temperature was
derived from a proxy based on Antarctic ice core methane data using the relation T = − 51.5 + 0.0802 [CH4 (ppb)-RSB- from a linear regression of Greenland
temperature estimates on Antarctic methane for the period 150 B.P. to 122,400 B.P.. For the remaining period of 122,400 B.P. to 128,700 B.P., data from a variety of climate archives indicate that Greenland warming lags that of Antarctica, with rapid warming commencing around 128.5 ky B.P. in the northern North Atlantic and reaching full interglacial levels by about 127 ky B.P. (51).
The bar graph below shows two
estimates of yearly average surface
temperature change both
derived from ERA - Interim.
That same reference finds that the statistical
estimates for the
temperature effect of volcanic sulfates and ENSO (and effects of ENSO on atmospheric CO2) are consistent with
estimates derived from climate models and empirical analyses.
However it should be noted that satellite - based
estimates of
temperature are a less appropriate measure of land surface
temperature than those
derived from ground - based stations.
Our independent proxy
estimates indicate that Arctic
temperatures during the Pliocene were considerably warmer than previous
estimates derived from empirical proxies (Ballantyne et al., 2006; Elias and Matthews, 2002) and climate model simulations (Haywood et al., 2009), despite
estimates of Pliocene atmospheric CO2 levels that are comparable to today (Pagani et al., 2010).
[Response: The effect on the data actually used by Steig et al for the results featured in the paper (the satellite -
derived ice surface
temperature estimates) is precisely zero.
Lastly, a composite distribution of Arctic Pliocene
temperature estimates was
derived by combining individual MAT
estimates into a joint distribution and resampling according to the bootstrap technique.
These range from simple averaging of regional data and scaling of the resulting series so that its mean and standard deviation match those of the observed record over some period of overlap (Jones et al., 1998; Crowley and Lowery, 2000), to complex climate field reconstruction, where large - scale modes of spatial climate variability are linked to patterns of variability in the proxy network via a multivariate transfer function that explicitly provides
estimates of the spatio - temporal changes in past
temperatures, and from which large - scale average
temperature changes are
derived by averaging the climate
estimates across the required region (Mann et al., 1998; Rutherford et al., 2003, 2005).
However, water
temperatures (SSTs, sea surface
temperatures) are available from ship and buoy reports, and more recently there are also SST
estimates derived from satellite data.
Hence the deduction of the
estimated change in ocean heat uptake from the
estimated change in forcing before comparison with the change in global
temperature to
derive sensitivity.
The inverse
estimates — where aerosol forcing is
derived from its effects on observables such as surface
temperatures and OHU — are a mixed bag, but almost all the good studies give a best
estimate for AFari + aci well below − 0.9 W / m ²: see Appendix 1 for a detailed analysis.