Sentences with phrase «average global surface temperatures does»

Victor also points out that average global surface temperatures doesn't fully represent the changing global climate.

Not exact matches

Jacob (and many, many others) seem to think that if model A, when run from 1900 to present, predicts the relatively flat, global average surface temperature record over the past decade, is a better match to reality than model B which does not.

Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.&Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.&global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.»

Correcting this failure is, to my mind, about quantifying the climate impacts» damages in a scale which plainly does not relate geometrically to average global surface air temperature.

When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures.

Please note that I don't rule anything out («The terms global temperature and regional temperature will be used here to refer to some kind of averaged surface temperature for the globe or for a region.

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!

I don't trust proxies and instrument records all that much before the satellite era for providing reasonably precise global average surface temperature.

On the previous sea surface temperature thread, I stated «Do you for one minute believe that the uncertainty in global average sea surface temperature in the 19th century is 0.3 C?

And, of course, we do not need to global climate models to run impact models with an annual average increase in the mean surface air temperature of +1 C and +2 C prescribed for the Netherlands.

Second — and I have a feeling you didn't know this — NH extratropical land surface temperatures are the main determinant of global average temperature estimates.

The fact this is seemingly not fully recognized — or here integrated — by Curry goes to the same reason Curry does not recognize why the so called «pause» is a fiction, why the «slowing» of the «rate» of increase in average ambient global land and ocean surface air temperatures over a shorter term period from the larger spike beyond the longer term mean of the 90s is also meaningless in terms of the basic issue, and why the average ambient increase in global air temperatures over such a short term is by far the least important empirical indicia of the issue.

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

Sorry it doesn't pass the back of the envelope calculations especially when Dr Spencer's global average temperature at near surface have recently fallen to 2008 levels.

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

So what we are doing is taking a linear transformation of the surface temperature anomaly in one part of the world, and subtracting it from the global average surface temperature anomaly.

Given that the average global surface temperature has not changed by more than 0.26 °C from one year to the next, I thought that giving him a 0.5 °C margin of error was a generous offer, but alas, McLean did not respond to my offer.

If the different methods are not analysing different definitions then why do values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) from decades ago alter when the method is changed from month to month: which is the right determination any of the ones before a change or any of those after it?

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases.

P.S. I do agree with you also that the policymakers (and Gavin) have made the global average surface temperature anomaly the primary climate metric to show the human influence on the climate system.

As global temperatures rise, so too do average sea surface temperatures.

lolwot: Does the Otto et al constraint of 0.9 to 2.0 °C TCS not support the IPCC statement «It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 - 2010.»?

I have to say that it would be much wiser to just say we don't have a good number on the OLWR and carry on with our analysis of total global heat change and its relationship to average global near - surface air temperature.

IMHO the emphasis on global average surface temperature in recent times, while understandable (if it really does rise 3 + K this century, the emphasis will have been justified) distracts from other issues that are just as important for local climate (which is what we all actually experience).

«The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.»