Sentences with phrase «about global temperature changes»

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.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

«We know that with global temperature about 0.9 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial, these changes are already causing significant harm to life.»

In New York City, the average temperature has increased about four degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and could get 10 degrees hotter by 2100, according to a study commissioned by the federally funded U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Results of a new study by researchers at the Northeast Climate Science Center (NECSC) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggest that temperatures across the northeastern United States will increase much faster than the global average, so that the 2 - degrees Celsius warming target adopted in the recent Paris Agreement on climate change will be reached about 20 years earlier for this part of the U.S. compared to the world as a whole.

In the current analysis, Bohr wanted to find out if people's particular political orientations and beliefs about global warming changed at all during periods of so - called temperature anomalies, when temperatures above or beyond the normal are experienced.

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

For example, the global temperature change when we recovered from the last ice age averaged only about 0.1 C per century (and descent into an ice age tended to be even slower)... whereas we are now looking at changes greater than that happening in one decade.

``... about 58 % of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97 % of specia lists surveyed.»

While the Arctic, as a whole, as risen at about twice the global rate, Antarctica, overall, has shown no significant temperature change.

But because of the necessary caveats that must be applied due to the state of the science I am starting to feel unable to say much about climate change apart from: «The increase in CO2 will very probably cause an overall increase in Global Average Temperature.

The point about heating (adding energy) vs warming (temperatures going up) is a very good one — it might help if the scientists involved with the major temperature series people look at (GISS, RSS, etc) also produced a global surface energy change index that accounted for things like melting ice, which absorb heat without raising temperatures.

According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, «Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change `, Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22 - 23 — only available for AGU members — update: a public link to the article is here), about 58 % of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97 % of specialists surveyed.

Which in fact makes me think of the issue raised by some skeptics about our ability to reliably detect global temperature changes of tenths of a degree in the past century.

[Response: I suspect another common confusion here: the abrupt glacial climate events (you mention the Younger Dryas, but there's also the Dansgaard - Oeschger events and Heinrich events) are probably not big changes in global mean temperature, and therefore do not need to be forced by any global mean forcing like CO2, nor tell us anything about the climate sensitivity to such a global forcing.

Re «Estimates of the drivers of global temperature change in the ice ages show that the changes in greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) made up about a third of the effect, amplifying the ice sheet changes by about 50 % (Köhler et al, 2010).»

The new research is a regional climate study of historical sea level pressures, winds and temperatures over the eastern Pacific Ocean and draws no conclusions about climate change on a global scale.

We are thus not talking about changes primarily in global mean temperature (these are small in the model results shown above).

Global temperature change is about half that in Antarctica, so this equilibrium global climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitGlobal temperature change is about half that in Antarctica, so this equilibrium global climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitglobal climate sensitivity is 1.5 C (Wm ^ -2) ^ -1, double the fast - feedback (Charney) sensitivity.

For a start, based on what we know about the forcings and the observed evolution of global mean temperature, why would one expect climate change to be a linear warming since 1880 in Moscow?

I regularly speak to public audiences about climate change (see http://www.andrewgunther.com/climate-change/#talks for details), and use the NASA / GISS dataset to discuss global average temperature of the atmosphere.

[Response: The global temperature change at the peak of the last ice age (about 20,000 years ago) were about 5 to 7 deg C colder than the present.

It is different for different datasets, but for Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) it turns out to be about a 30 - year period centered on the point at which you are trying to determine what the rate of change in GMST is.

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming «community» — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by «dramatic changes» in temperatures.

The Nature study is talking about changes associated with ocean circulation even while CO2, and the global imbalance, and global temperature, is increasing.

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7 - 8 degrees F (1.5 - 4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun.

I read some Hansen papers about «dangerous climate change», but his comparison (notably) with Eemian didn't convince me (beyong global mean temperature of the two periods, there was a huge solar forcing on Greenland during the thermal maximum of Eemian).

Also, the term «global pattern of warming» implies regional temperature change, which pushes the climate system response discussion to a much higher level of complexity than when simply talking about changes in global - mean climate.

What's important here, and remains important, scientists say, is how the patterns of atmospheric and climatic change reveal the most about the involvement of greenhouse gases, not simply the change in global temperature.

Climate alarm depends on several gloomy assumptions — about how fast emissions will increase, how fast atmospheric concentrations will rise, how much global temperatures will rise, how warming will affect ice sheet dynamics and sea - level rise, how warming will affect weather patterns, how the latter will affect agriculture and other economic activities, and how all climate change impacts will affect public health and welfare.

There is also a natural variability of the climate system (about a zero reference point) that produces El Nino and La Nina effects arising from changes in ocean circulation patterns that can make the global temperature increase or decrease, over and above the global warming due to CO2.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11 - 12 months behind changes in global sea surface tempeChanges in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11 - 12 months behind changes in global sea surface tempechanges in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5 - 10 months behind changes in global surface air tempeChanges in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5 - 10 months behind changes in global surface air tempechanges in global surface air temperature.

From Climate Change Dispatch Peter Ferrara — Forbes Blogs — February 24, 2014 If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.

This represents an about 53 % administrative temperature increase over this period, meaning that more than half of the reported (by GISS) global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative changes of the original data since May 2008.

The Arctic relationship should change in the next few years which should produce about a 0.2 C negative swing in «global» temperatures in the GISS 1200 km version which will produce a difficult challenge for the warmistas.

This is what most of us think of when we talk about «Global Warming»; that it is changes in the air temperature!

The melting of the Arctic ice will bring about changes that go way beyond the disastrous weather events we are seeing (and are clear to anyone looking down here in the South Pacific) but will lead to immediate increases in global temperatures which will make the large - scale growing of grain crops impossible.

In my earlier posting, I tried to make the distinction that global climate change (all that is changing in the climate system) can be separated into: (1) the global warming component that is driven primarily by the increase in greenhouse gases, and (2) the natural (externally unforced) variability of the climate system consisting of temperature fluctuations about an equilibrium reference point, which therefore do not contribute to the long - term trend.

Given that there is still much we do not know about climate change — including why mean global temperature has been flat for the past ten years — undermining confidence in climate science can (further) undermine its ability to inform policy.

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 milleGlobal 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 milleglobal temperature trends of the last millennium.

«Getting serious about climate change requires wrangling about the cost of emissions goals, sharing the burdens and drawing up international funding mechanisms,» they add, so it makes sense to shift from a simple but esoteric measure of global - temperature change to a range of indicators to which larger numbers of people are likelier to relate — indicators the authors argue are thus likelier to spur policies that have a real climate - curbing impact.

I asked him for his thoughts about climate change, after noting that we'd been through a year of record global temperatures, floods, and the Paris climate accord.

While changes in solar output have slightly increased global average temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the planet - warming effect of man - made greenhouse gases is about 20 times larger -LRB-

Recently there have been a number of prominent scientists coming out against CAGW, the global temperature curve remains flat, a prominent CAGW supporter has changed «sides» in Germany, and has written a book about the IPCC........

Sealing time of air bubbles at best about 70 years and mixing with ambient air through diffusion all that time, chemical changes thereafter, different diffusion rates for different gases thereafter... ice cores are a target - rich environment for casting of doubt about how well they perform as global temperature proxies.

The temperature that climate scientists typically reference and care about with regard to climate change is «the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas».

So, to be able to monitor and predict changes in global temperature we need more than information about the past, current and expected future level of solar activity.