Sentences with phrase «average global response»

, the average global response to low latitude volcanoes is close to that expected of a shallow ocean system.

If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1 °C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5 °C, not seen in reality.

Not exact matches

The Dow Jones industrial average plummeted 611 points, or about 3.4 %, on Friday as global stock, currency and other markets convulsed in response to Britain's surprising vote to leave the European Union.

The average price for a gallon of unleaded regular shot up 13 cents in just three days last week in response to a spike in crude oil prices on the global market.

«This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the [2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate - resilient development.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

[Response: While the raw data at any one station at any one time obviously doesn't change, the value for any regional or global average in the past is always an estimate since there isn't a perfect network of measurements across the whole area.

Efficacies can vary because different patterns of RF can alter the climate response with some global average effect.

(Orbital forcing doesn't have much of a global annual average forcing, and it's even concievable that the sensitivity to orbital forcing as measured in terms of global averages and the long - term response (temporal scale of ice sheet response) might be approaching infinity or even be negative (if more sunlight is directed onto an ice sheet, the global average albedo might increase, but the ice sheet would be more likely to decay, with a global average albedo feedback that causes warming).

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

The instantaneous RF difference between the tropopause and TOA is the instantaneous forcing on the stratosphere RFs1; if the TOA forcing is smaller than the tropopause forcing, then the forcing on the stratosphere is negative, which means that the stratosphere will cool (this doesn't necessarily mean it will cool everywhere, but the equilibrium response to negative stratospheric RF requires a negative PR+CR response — being the stratosphere, at least in the global time average, CR can be approximated as zero).

Starting from an old equilbrium, a change in radiative forcing results in a radiative imbalance, which results in energy accumulation or depletion, which causes a temperature response that approahes equilibrium when the remaining imbalance approaches zero — thus the equilibrium climatic response, in the global - time average (for a time period long enough to characterize the climatic state, including externally imposed cycles (day, year) and internal variability), causes an opposite change in radiative fluxes (via Planck function)(plus convective fluxes, etc, where they occur) equal in magnitude to the sum of the (externally) imposed forcing plus any «forcings» caused by non-Planck feedbacks (in particular, climate - dependent changes in optical properties, + etc.).)

Regarding the «global ice at 1980 levels», here is the canned response we wrote in rebuttal to the astonishingly twisted piece in Daily Tech: What the graph shows is that the global sea ice area for early January 2009 is on the long term average (zero anomaly).

The equilibrium response to an addition of RF at a level is an increase in net upward flux consisting of LW radiation (the Planck response, PR) plus a convective flux response CR; CR is approximately zero at and above the tropopause in the global time average.

Idiosyncracies in the forcings may alter the 4 - dimension structure of the climate response so as to change the global average feedback.

(57m) However, externally imposed forcings with a global average externally imposed RF may tend to cause similar climatic responses both in the global average and in regional / latitudinal and seasonal (modulation of response to external - forcing cycles that themselves are held constant) and internal variability patterns, provided they are not too idiosyncratic.

The equilbrium global time average response (on a time scale sufficient to characterize externally - forced cycles (day, year) and internal varibility) to an imposed global time average radiative forcing is a change that balances the externally imposed forcing plus any non-Planck feedbacks (where the Planck response is part of the response to the other feedbacks.

[Response: Note that the numbers we are talking about are the global average temperature anomaly (not absolute temperature).

[Response I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but if you feel that you can only assess whether temperatures are changing by looking at 30 - year averages, consider the following: Global mean temperature anomalies (in degrees C, relative to 1961 - 90 reference period): 1885 - 1914: -0.35; 1915 - 1944: -0.18; 1945 - 1974: -0.07; 1975 - 2004: +0.21.

So, I'm beginning to think that the response of global average surface temperature to solar variations for the 11 - yr solar cycle is * not * amplified (by feedbacks).

In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).

The global average temperature is continuing to rise as a consequence of warming driven by ever higher greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, in response to the profligate global consumption of fossil fuels.

Dana, I think you are pushing in the right direction with this; heat content is a much more direct measure of the underlying changes to the climate system than average air temperatures and climate science communicators should make heat content their first response to the suggestion that global warming is something that waxes and (allegedly, recently) wanes.

Would not then these very different percentages of both incoming and outgoing L - W and S - W radiation and different responses, to increased Co-2, produce very different results then using straight line global averages?

The Paris Agreement1 «aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change... by: Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2oC above pre-industrial levels...»

It is very disconcerting that parameterization of the geometric details of aerosols, for example, have been linked to representation of the response of the global - average surface temperature.

The Paris Agreement achieved at COP21 aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change namely by «holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.»

During that same period, average annual rainfall in New South Wales declined by 3.6 inches (92 millimeters).3 Scientists think the decline in autumn rainfall in southeast Australia since the late 1950s may be partly due to increases in heat - trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.3, 14 Major bushfires over southeast Australia are linked to the positive phase of an ocean cycle called the «Indian Ocean Dipole» — when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average in the western Indian Ocean, likely in response to global warming.15, 16

Much of the harm these events cause in Europe comes from physical damage to its industrial life support system, as the global average temperature continues to rise as a consequence of warming driven by ever higher greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, in response to the profligate global consumption of fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which the vast majority of climate scientists agree will cause major ** adverse effects **.

The 31 years of satellite measurement of OLR show an average OLR of around 232Watts / m ^ 2 with a range from 227Watts / m ^ 2 to 237Watts / m ^ 2 in response to the annual seasonal variation in absolute global temperature between 12 °C and 16 °C due to the significantly larger temperate landmass in the Northern hemisphere.

And since «global climate» obviously doesn't mean this year or last, I'll stick to the definition implied by the IPCC's definition of Transient Climate Response, namely a 20 - year running average.

Tamino doesn't want to admit that there's been no detectable acceleration in the global average rate of sea - level rise in response to ~ 2/3 century of steadily increasing CO2 emissions and levels, but that's what the data unambiguously shows.

Normally you can run GCM for centuries with a stable realistic surface temperature, but take the CO2 out, and in 5 - 10 years it has dropped 30 C in global average temperature and is half - covered in sea ice due to a powerful water vapor feedback in response to any global temperature change.

The CO2 doubling response from CM2.6, over 70 - 80 years, shows that upper - ocean (0 - 300 m) temperature in the Northwest Atlantic Shelf warms at a rate nearly twice as fast as the coarser models and nearly three times faster than the global average.

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium.

• No adaptive responses to coral bleaching, even on a regional scale, will be available if average global temperature increases 2 °C by 2050.

In the graphs above you then see the effect this has on the CO2 concentration, the global average temperature, and the sea level, and how this response is damped.

In the last two years they have reached 400 ppm, as a response to two centuries of fossil fuel combustion, and average global temperatures have risen by almost 1 °C, with a record reading in 2016 of 1.3 °C.

Global average temperature response is a little better.

Re 416 Bernd Herd — in climate science, for global climate change, specifically a global (average surface) temperature change in response to a global (typically average net tropopause - level after stratospheric adjustment) radiative forcing (or other heat source — although on Earth those tend not to be so big), where the radiative forcing may be in units of W / m ^ 2, so that equilibrium climate sensitivity is in K * m ^ 2 / W (it is often expressed as K / doubling CO2 as doubling CO2 has a certain amount of radiative forcing for given conditions).

If the counter argument is that these changes are a response to Global Warming - it would be really good to see a graph showing what the models predicted / hindcast on average for the global cloud Global Warming - it would be really good to see a graph showing what the models predicted / hindcast on average for the global cloud global cloud cover.

Model - average mean local precipitation responses also roughly scale with the global mean temperature response across the emissions scenarios, though not as well as for temperature.