Sentences with phrase «actual global mean»

Three of the four global average temperatures indeed are decreasing in their trends (although the actual global mean temperatures are still warmer than the previous decades).

Not exact matches

I think you mistake the historical trend of adjustments to the bitcoin difficulty generally being upward, with the actual mechanism where the difficulty is adjusted to keep the global mean - time - to - valid - block constant, because of the other historical trend of mining power going up.

Morris sees herself as painting actual cities within global networks, while Green sees the earth apart from urban structures and human means of control.

(2) What proportion of model runs from a multi-model ensemble produce global mean temperatures at or below (on average) the actual measurement for the last 10 years?

The IPCC claims the models» global (wide) mean annual temperatures is highly correlated (0.98) with measured actual (ignoring for now the question of the validity and reliability (noise) of the measurements themselves).

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.

This means that there has been very little actual global warming (or net TOA radiative imbalance) in these seven years.

It took me a while to get my head around it, and I was in good company; «Figure 4 in the actual paper shows the global mean temperature trends and there is no projected cooling» I wonder who said that; --RRB-

gavin, I am interested in what an x feet (for various x) increase in sea level means as a reduction in actual global land area but perhaps more relevantly in the resultant increase / decrease in habitable land area (increased I imagine in Canada, Siberia, Antarctica etc).

And so the world is awash with quotes of absolute global mean temperatures for single years which use different baselines giving wildly oscillating fluctuations as a function of time which are purely a function of the uncertainty of that baseline, not the actual trends.

It certainly isn't any «actual» global mean surface temperature (whatever global mean surface temperature even means in practice).

What I mean is simply that we have as much actual empirical evidence for the existence of even one unicorn in this world as we have for the basic AGW claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere can, will and does cause a net rise in Earth's average global surface temperature, i.e. NONE whatsoever!

This means that the calculated global temperature trends are showing a lot more warming than the actual global temperature trends.

Since then there are a number of papers published on why the warming was statistically insignificant including a recent one by Richardson et al. 2016 which tries to explain that the models were projecting a global tas (temperature air surface) but the actual observations are a combination of tas (land) and SST oceans, meaning projected warming shouldn't be as much as projected.

The satellite model you refer to in fact tells us that actual global temperature from 1979 to 1997 showed only ENSO oscillations while global mean temperature at the same time stayed constant.

I am still waiting for word on what the global temperature anomaly for the month was, but I suspect it will be fairly close to normal, which means that on average the temperature of the Earth will come in at ~ 12.0 °C which is 4 °C colder than it will be in 6 months from now, but because of how they talk about temperature, I will be the only one pointing out the difference between the actual temperature and the anomaly temperature.

But it does mean that the IPCC's climate scientists were wrong about future global warming, and that the consensus is now changing due to actual climate reality.

The effects of this uneven sampling are being investigated and quantified in several ways, for example by estimating «true» global - mean temperatures from the complete fields generated by satellite observations, blends of satellite and in situ data, or climate models, and then sampling these fields using the actual (incomplete) observed data coverage (see chapter 9).

Measurement sites form the core input of the data set for calculating this «global mean temperature» (whatever that actually means), but the measurements from these sites is accurate at best to the nearest 1 degree, in actual practice around the nearest 5 degrees since many are reading off mercury thermometers — and this condition increases in frequency the further back in time you go.

But the actual change of the global mean temperature in the last 77 years (in average) is so tiny that the place - dependent noise still safely beats the «global warming trend», yielding an ambiguous sign of the temperature trend that depends on the place.»

One of the points on which Prof Curry and Dr. Schmidt agree is that attribution requires a comparison of the actual data (global mean temp, global mean rainfall, etc) to a model of what would have happened absent human alteration of the Earth surface and atmosphere.

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections.

Abstract: «The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections.

GAT is a product of sparse measurements of selected areas of the global climate, It is a mean not of actual average temps, but of anomalies.

Rhetorically, unable to rebut the statistics @ 13, he wishes both to distract from the 1910 - 1945 period, to dismiss the relevance of statistics in favour of popular reports and ancedotes (hence the dismissive comment about the «numbers guy»), and (apparently) to assert that the period from 1945 to 1974 consituted not just a pause, as he has previously argued, but an actual decline in global mean surface temperature.

Fig. 3 shows that the resulting cleaned signal presents a nearly monotonic warming of the global mean surface temperature throughout the 20th century, and closely resembles a quadratic fit to the actual 20th century global mean temperature.

Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century.

To show visually just how extraordinary your claim of «the global mean temperature pattern has not changed since its record begun 160 years ago,» let us examine your claim vs. the actual, based on BEST, and with a glimpse of the CO2 trend tossed in to satisfy Anteros» question:

Over a twenty year period ending 2012, Climate alamists» GCMs simulated a «rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade,» compared to the actual rate of warming, was more than double.

The delayed sea level reaction to temperatures doesn't mean tide records necessarily reflect actual thermometer readings before 1990 but it's nevertheless interesting that, due to the low 1992 global temperature indicated in the IPCC chart above (Mt Pinatubo?)

Secondly, the actual mean albedo is still not that well known — true, recent estimates are lower than the earlier numbers which most GCMs were tuned against, but I would be hesitiant in assuming that a 1 % change in global albedo will suddenly make a big difference in response.