Sentences with phrase «about global temperature»

I will make one response, in the form of rhetorical questions, specific to your interesting historical narative because you say you understand statistics: what confidence can one get about a global temperature record from sampling a single locality (Dartmoor uplands)?

Nothing prior to mid 18th century about global temperature except a bunch of highly unreliable «proxies», some of which were denied by their own researchers.

The satellites tells us more than enough about global temperature, terrestrial monitoring is a joke system, with all its unwarranted adjustments and faked data, also it employs too many climate change advocates — just sack them all.

It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society.

In between our series about the global temperature trend and our (upcoming) series about climate & biodiversity, let's do a short series about sea level rise, shall we?

If you're talking about a change in the rate, trend of warming, or even just say that «warming has slowed» in the context of the general discussion about global temperature records, you are implying something about a change in trend.

Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data.

It informs us about the global temperature change «in the pipeline» without further change of climate forcings and it defines how much greenhouse gases must be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which, at least to a good approximation, must be the requirement for stabilizing global climate.

(3) «Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's «astonishing evidence» about global temperature rise» by Zeke Hausfather of Berkley Earth, posted at Carbon Brief.

And the actual scientific truth about global temperature change is not difficult to determine, since all it takes to analyze temperatures is to download the NOAA / NASA satellite temperature datasets and then plot the measurements using Microsoft Excel.

After much bandying of words about global temperature the «debate» headed north to the Arctic.

I know this is a cherry pick from the emails and Trenberth is not talking about global temperature, but don't know where to find the blog post where I read about this.

The top 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998 as a result...» Here we have a demonstration of basic ignorance about the global temperature curve.

NASA says 97 % of scientists agree that their temperature graphs are accurate, and NASA, NOAA, CRU and JMA all independently agree very precisely about global temperature going back to 1880.

Titley passed on the opportunity — which Mr. Takano offered up twice — and instead talked about global temperature trends and the probability of getting heads if you flip a coin 36 times.

In our «Global temperature changes of the last millennium» paper, we reviewed these estimates, discussed the assumptions and approximations they made, and attempted to assess what they tell us about the global temperature trends of the last millennium.

The most important thing is that global warming should be seen — precisely — globally, because as it gets cold in a larger area around us, it does not tell anything about the global temperature.

How about a global temperature index?

If the MWP did exist then what would be falsified is not just an hypothesis about global temperature but the entire meme of the special intuition of the consensus in climate science.

«If the global numbers come out as CRU has presented over the years, then it will strike a blow to skepticism about global temperature trend records produced by CRU and restore a good deal of credibility to this area of climate science.»

With this package, students can impress their friends (and annoy their AGW skeptic parents) by shooting down Anthony Watts» favorite claims about the global temperature record with just a series of mouse - clicks.

It informs us about the global temperature change «in the pipeline» without further change of climate forcings and it defines how much greenhouse gases must be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which, at least to a good approximation, must be the requirement for stabilizing global climate.

It's not just about global temperature.»

But he did not understand that we are talking about global temperatures.

Citing the GISTEMP global anomally as he does, that should indicate that he is talking about global temperatures, but it turns out he is not.

However, I am not persuaded there is anything unusual about the global temperatures of climate.

The result, which appears below (in red) will surprise many in the room — ... Continue reading Update about global temperatures.

The real danger of course, is not this petty squabble about global temperatures.

Either the temperature record is sufficiently accurate to examine its evolution, including the possibility that warming may have «paused», or the record is so unreliable that no determination about global temperatures can be made.

IIRC, Trenberth is talking about global temperatures, but he is saying that the energy that we know is arriving is not accounted for in his famous energy balance paper.

Headlines like «2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record» have been posted on climate skeptic blogs, such as Watts Up With That, and a commentator for the popular British newspaper The Daily Mail all but accused NASA of lying to the press and the public about global temperatures, despite the open discussion of uncertainties both in NASA's press materials and during a press conference with audio that is publicly accessible.

Until there is a firm prediction about when this human caused global warming will end the current global cooling of 0.2 °C / century as depicted on the HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset since 2002; the only ones who can be called deniers are those who deny the world of the truth about global temperatures.

Btw, one could similarly use Bayesian analyses to determine, given BEST and HADSST, what is the likelihood of various global trends; indeed, one needs only know BEST and the relative size of the part of the globe BEST covers, to give definitive answers about global temperatures using Bayes (improved considerably if one has meaningful information about land - sea temperature relationships).

In light of some of his other claims about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice, however, I thought I'd do some of my own snooping.

So it's plain false to say BEST has nothing to say about global temperatures.

Yet these proxies are being used to make claims about global temperatures (when coverage within the northern hemisphere is rather poor and coverage outside the northern hemisphere is almost nonexistent) with uncertainties of less than one degree celcius..

It may well turn out to be true, but the point is not that science can or has said anything about global temperatures, the point is that the «scientific» account that Hari gives is intended to make statements about those who would interpret things differently.

Fancy Suzuki not even knowing what the world's main temperature data sets say about global temperatures.

What does this say about global temperatures?

Not exact matches

Scientific studies of global warming talk about the variation of the earths temperature over millions of years — oops.

Last week Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, estimated that the average global temperature in 2016 could range from about 1.1 °C above preindustrial to only slightly below 1.5 °C, based on GISS's temperature record and its definition of pre-industrial (other records and definitions vary).

During the Eocene, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than 560 parts per million, at least twice preindustrial levels, and the epoch kicked off with a global average temperature more than 8 degrees Celsius — about 14 degrees Fahrenheit — warmer than today, gradually cooling over the next 22 million years.

In our industrial world, rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 has surpassed 400 ppm, levels not achieved since the Pliocene era about 3 million years ago, while global temperature has increased nearly 1 °C since the 1870s.

But they've been especially interested in the most recent period of abrupt global warming, the Bølling - Allerød, which occurred about 14,500 years ago when average temperatures in Greenland rose about 15 degrees Celsius in about 3,000 years.

This may have helped offset greenhouse warming from about 1940 to 1980, when global temperatures rose little before rising steeply.

To be more specific, the models project that over the next 20 years, for a range of plausible emissions, the global temperature will increase at an average rate of about 0.2 degree C per decade, close to the observed rate over the past 30 years.

They estimate that, across about 60 % of the global vegetated area, greening has buffered warming by about 14 %; for the remaining areas, which mostly include boreal zones, LAI trends have amplified the raise in air temperatures, leading to an additional warming of about 10 %.

The new mitigation measures would also bring climate benefits, reducing global temperatures by about 0.22 °C by 2050, relative to a scenario without these measures.

«People have thought about how forest loss matters for an ecosystem, and maybe for local temperatures, but they haven't thought about how that interacts with the global climate,» said co-author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and of biology.

To have any chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C, we have to limit future emissions to about 500 gigatonnes of CO2.