Sentences with phrase «arguments over temperature»

«I think that arguments over temperature targets are a distraction,» Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution, wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Yale Forum.

Not exact matches

The confused argument hinges on one data set — the HadCRUT 3V — which is only one of several estimates, and it is the global temperature record that exhibits the least change over the last decade.

There are two USB ports tucked away under the 1980s temperature controls (detracting slightly from the otherwise primo cabin), meaniong there won't be any arguments over who gets to charge their smartphone.

(If scientists with such a range of views agree that this work is valid, that seems to cut against arguments over the reliability and utility of temperature records gathered by weather stations — or am I missing something?)

The general argument however is being discussed by rasmus in the context of planetary energy balance: the impact of additional CO2 is to reduce the outgoing longwave radiation term and force the system to accumulate excess energy; the imbalance is currently on the order of 1.45 * (10 ^ 22) Joules / year over the globe, and the temperature must rise allowing the outgoing radiation term to increase until it once again matches the absorbed incoming stellar flux.

Re # 73: Remember that this whole discussion started with your argument in # s 56 and 65 that «this (natural) shift seems to account for the increase in temperature in Alaska over the past 30 years» so that «it's tough the blame the last 30 yrs for permafrost issues in / around Fairbanks, or imply that AGW is responsible.»

Nice misconception you have going there but the real argument is that CO2 can lower the temperature gradient of the cool skin layer, which slows the heat loss to the atmosphere and increased levels of greenhouse gases lead to more heat being stored in the oceans over the long - term.

Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent / nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the «estimate» of CO2 sensitivity, let's look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet's temperature is falling.

I know all this has been covered before, but I think everyone should keep in mind that the statistical argument in the end mostly boils down to the pre-eminence of a handful of high altitude North American tree - ring samples in the reconstruction of global temperature over the last thousand years.

Sir David King has written: «Human activity is to blame for the rise in temperature over recent decades, and will be responsible for more changes in the future... If anybody tells you differently, they either have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific arguments or they are fools.»

It's a problem for your argument when you try to convince people that sparse or non-existent temperature over most of the globe is sufficient to establish a global average temperature trend accurate to tenth's of a degree per decade.

And the argument that Global Average temperature is robust because it has been averaged over many samples?

Nasif has already answered sod's point, but just to clarify: his argument is that modern temperatures sustained over a 500 - year period in the past must must have had an enormous impact on flora and fauna.

Leif Svalgaard's argument, as I understand it, is that with the most recent and reliable reconstructions of the history of solar activity, temperature change and solar activity are almost perfectly uncorrelated over a time span of 300 years, and the association apparent in Alec Rawls» graph only appears in the 20th century.

I'm not going to review the various arguments that indicate that this is indeed the equilibrium — they are straightforward consideration of the integrals over the blackbody spectra from the two bodies that shows that the hotter one loses heat (on average) and the colder one gains heat (on average) until they are at the same temperature and have identical spectra, where the (time / frequency averaged integral of the) flux of the Poynting vector vanishes within microscopic thermal fluctuations of the sort that are routinely ignored in thermodynamics.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

In the High Tech, Space Industry Engineering Departments I worked in over a lifetime (you know, the people who designed and built the temperature sensors used around the world today) this technique or «argument» is called «magic with numbers» or more commonly «dry lab - ing the data».

On blogs like Dr. Curry's I continually see learned, and heated, arguments over the meaning of fluctuations in the «annual temperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thtemperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thTemperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of thTemperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their choice.

(12) Indeed Cesare Emiliani, who often disagreed with Lamont scientists, published an argument that the temperature rise of some 8C had been the expected gradual kind, stretching over some 8,000 years.

Carvin did forcefully make some First Amendment arguments, but, in doing so, too often failed to observe that various opinions were not only permitted, but reasonable... Because Steyn and National Review have parted ways, Carvin and National Review seem to have been unaware of the long backstory and more or less presented the dispute (from National Review's perspective) as little more than a purely academic controversy over the validity of tree rings as a temperature proxy, leaving the judges completely mystified on why Mann, as opposed to any one of hundreds of scientists, was at issue.

The problem with that argument is that over long periods of time (like the six decades since 1950), positive and negative phases of ocean cycles tend to cancel each other out, and thus internal variability doesn't have a large influence on long - term temperatures.

Depending on which particular set of data you looked at, and how you calculated trends, there was an argument that temperature rises had slowed over a period of about 15 years.

Given what is happening in Russia and Pakistan at this very moment, and the highest temperatures ever recorded being observed all over the Earth, not to mention the recently observed ongoing die - off of oceanic phytoplankton, just to mention a few «current events», arguments about «forecasts» seem surrealistic.

So I'd ask you to explain the Medieval Warm Period or the lack of correlation between the earth's temperature and CO2 levels going back over the last 650m years, and the circular argument would begin again.

The importance of this rebuttal or whatever you want to call it becomes even more obvious when you re-visit the Guardian's take on the Steig et al. article when it was published — «Research «kills off» climate sceptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 years.»

I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly - received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture - notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere «hot - spot» for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data.

His unspoken argument is that you have to take a temperature trend over complete cycle (s) in order to remove the cyclical effect: «To remove the warming rate due to the multidecadal oscillation of about 60 years cycle, least squares trend of 60 years period from 1945 to 2004 is calculated ``.