Sentences with phrase «average surface temperatures when»

But we live on the surface of the Earth not in the ocean and this seems like a good reason for the IPCC to focus on the average surface temperatures when it examines detection and attribution.

Not exact matches

The CPC officially considers it an event when the sea surface temperatures in a key region of the ocean reach at least 0.5 °C, or about 1 °F, warmer than average.

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.

A question: the article leaves one with the impression that when (not if) there is a return to some strong El Niño events that surface temperature averages will resume their rise.

If one postulates that the global average surface temperature tracks the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, possibly with some delay, then when the CO2 concentration continues to rise monotonically but the global average surface temperature shows fluctuations as a function of time with changes in slope (periods wherein it decreases), then you must throw the postulate away.

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

Secondly, unlike the global average surface temperature trend, which has a lag with respect to radiative forcing, there is no such lag when heat content is measured in Joules (see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf).

There have been decades, such as 2000 — 2009, when the observed globally averaged surface - temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period).

'' If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

This seems to misunderstand the climate system lag time: «If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

But even when carbon dioxide does make its way out of the atmosphere, Earth's natural systems can release other carbon dioxide molecules that were previously stored in the oceans / land back into the atmosphere, making the full effect of carbon dioxide emissions on surface temperatures much longer than this 5 - 200 year average.

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

17 El Nino verses La Nina El Niño La Niña Trade winds weaken Warm ocean water replaces offshore cold water near South America Irregular intervals of three to seven years Wetter than average winters in NC La Niña Normal conditions between El Nino events When surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are colder than average The southern US is usually warmer and dryer in climate

Because hurricane caused flooding was more prevalent during the Little Ice Age when Atlantic temperatures averaged 1 to 2 degrees F colder than today researchers concluded, «The frequent occurrence of major hurricanes in the western Long Island record suggests that other climate phenomena, such as atmospheric circulation, may have been favorable for intense hurricane development despite lower sea surface temperatures.»

The NINO3.4 index is defined as the average of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies over the region 5 ° N - 5 ° S and 170 ° -120 ° W. El Niño (a warm event) is considered to occur when the NINO3.4 index persistently exceeds +0.8 °C.

When he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilWhen he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibility.

This was defined as the date when the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (HadCRUT3 at the time) would exceed that of 1990 by 0.5 ºC.

Back in 2009, by analysing the data, I found that the global average sea surface temperature, the SST, stays fairly constant when the Sun is averaging around 40 sunspots per month.

However, I hope is is not to the area averaged surface statistical models, in which case don't bother, as I consider these models to have become obsolete as temperature estimates when the first satellites were launched around 1978.

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

When international delegates meet in Paris next year to negotiate a new global climate agreement, they'll be aiming to keep global average surface temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrial levels.

In conclusion, our analysis suggests that strong interannual and decadal variations observed in the average land surface temperature records represent a true climate phenomenon, not only during the years when fluctuations on the timescale of 2 - 15 years had been previously identified with El Nino events.

Again for example, during multidecadal periods when El Niño events dominate, the tropical North Atlantic trade winds would be on average weaker than «normal», there would be less evaporation, less cool subsurface waters would be drawn to the surface, and tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperatures would rise.

Current «cool» phase of the PDO began in late 1998 / early 1999 (certainly not 2008), and when it flipped it generally meant cooler sea surface temperatures along the west coast of N. America but warmer temperatures on average over other other broad regions of the Pacific.

To Jim D When you measure OLR from satellites you actually sample the OLR intensity over many thousands of samples over the entire Eartyh and then average the values because the individual values are entirley dependent on the temperature of that area of the surface that the OLR is radiated from.

Nothing, right... except when you consider that the radiative forcing due to doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is only about 3.7 W / m ², and that's expected to change the average surface temperature by about 3 °C, eventually ³.

When someone talks about climate change and warming in particular it would only make sense if they meant that the average temperature accross the earths surface is warmer than it used to be at some point in the past.

When winter storms have been violent, usually because of an increased contrast between the average temperature of land and ocean surfaces, you find a lot more dust and salt spray (indicates wind over oceans) in the cores.

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.

I found that when LOD data is added to integrated sunspot numbers departing from the long term average, a curve can be produced which matches the sea surface temperature record from 1850 significantly better than the co2 curve does.

The slowdown or «hiatus» in warming refers to the period since 2001, when despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, Earth's global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady, warming by only around 0.1 C.

When the SAM is in a positive phase — meaning that the belt of winds is stronger than average — it has a cooling effect on Antarctic surface temperatures.

As just one example; «How we can know an average global sea surface temperature back to 1850 when so much of the world was unexplored let alone its oceans measured» should be just one example that should make scientists question whether the models they build are actually using reliable data, or whether they think they already know the answer and therefore just use data that supports it, no matter its doubtful provenance.

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?

Dr. Gerald A. Meehl — Nature Climate Change — 18th September 2011 «There have been decades, such as 2000 — 2009, when the observed globally averaged surface - temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)....»

The last time in Earth history when the global average surface temperature was as warm as the IPCC projects for 2100 in its mid-range scenarios, there was very little polar ice and sea level would have been roughly 70 meters (over 200 feet) higher than at present.

extreme heat; or b) a nuclear winter; or most likely c) extreme heat followed by a nuclear winter — Joe Neubarth writes: «The program is running and we are rushing to an abrupt end... Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is going up to 17ºC in the next few years — this will kill @ 7 billion people... When about 6 billion people have died from global heating, they will use nuclear weapons to refreeze the Arctic...»

You then point to the thermometer showing that when you added the atmosphere including the infrared gases, you had temperature reduction; and, that even though the slowing of cooling means a higher average surface temperature,

So how can we possibly start talking about anthropogenic forcings and surface temperature changes wrought by same when we don't even know to + -5 C what the average temperature of the earth should be due to our albedo measurements being so imprecise and having no bloody idea how, when, and why the earth's average albedo varies.

Not that anyone's going to take any notice of me, but I think it unwise to use pre-industrial global temperature as a baseline when the global - average surface temperature seems to have varied by several tenths of a degC during the half - millenium or so preceding the industrial era.

Those suggest that the concentration of CO2 last approached 400 ppm about 3 to 5 million years ago, a period when global average surface temperature is estimated to have been about 2 to 3.5 °C higher than in the pre-industrial period.

When you try to consider the effect at the surface, a global average temperature change no longer means much.

Hey, guys, let's cobble together a «globally and annually averaged hand - picked land and sea surface temperature» construct, so we can figure out when we'll reach our «irreversible tipping point»..