Sentences with phrase «better than the global average»

The chief reason the OMP has no foreign diversification is that long - run returns on Canadian stocks are better than the global average, and nearly as good as returns on U.S. stocks (best performing country over the past two centuries).

North American property firms did better than the global average, cutting down their energy consumption by 2.5 %.

Not exact matches

While this approach has worked so far — Edgepoint's four - star Global Portfolio Series fund has a 13 % five - year annualized return, nearly 3 % better than the category average, according to Morningstar — it's going to be tested.

Joint cuts of 1.8 million b / d have reduced OECD oil inventories towards their five - year average and cleared most of the global glut, with the Saudis cutting even deeper than agreed in an attempt to lift prices well above US$ 80 before selling off shares in Aramco.

With rates of sea - level rise along parts of the nation's Eastern seaboard increasing three to four times faster than the global average, experts are working to mitigate the effects by identifying threats, organizing collaboration among governments and organizations, as well as examining better...

With rates of sea - level rise along parts of the nation's Eastern seaboard increasing three to four times faster than the global average, experts are working to mitigate the effects by identifying threats, organizing collaboration among governments and organizations, as well as examining better communication techniques.

A percentile of 60 means that the average student in a district is achieving better than 59.9 percent of the students in our global comparison group.

A percentile ranking of 60, for example, indicates that the average student in a district performed better than 59.9 percent of students in the global comparison group.

On average, unconstrained bond funds experienced a maximum drawdown of 3.02 %, which was better than the U.S. Aggregate Bond Index and the Global Aggregate Bond Index.

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.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

As far as this historic period is concerned, the reconstruction of past temperatures based on deep boreholes in deep permafrost is one of the best past temperature proxies we have (for the global regions with permafrost — polar regions and mountainous regions)-- as a signal of average temperatures it's even more accurate than historic direct measurements of the air temperature, since the earth's upper crust acts as a near perfect conservator of past temperatures — given that no water circulation takes place, which is precisely the case in permafrost where by definition the water is frozen.

The scientific community has also known for some time that the predicted future global warming in most climate models (more than 2 degrees C.) would probably be well above the long - term average temperature present at any time during the Holocene.

Temperatures in the tropics (especially daytime temperatures) are much higher than the global «average» so the absolute humidity must be higher as well — conversely, temperatures in the polar regions are much colder than global averages.

If we do not apply any physical modelling to the problem of finding the global average temperature, it seems to me that for each point on the Earth we can make no better temperature estimate than by interpolation based on triangles.

Overall ocean surface warmth, however, was extraordinary throughout September, pushing well above the global average and ranging, in GFS models, from 0.7 C to 1.2 C above the already hotter than normal 1979 to 2000 average.

Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)(or 2 degrees Celsius [°C]-RRB- above pre-industrial levels poses severe risks to natural systems and to human health and well - being.

While India as a whole demands a significant percent of the world's biocapacity, its per - capita Ecological Footprint, 0.8 global hectares, is smaller than that in many other countries, and well below the world average of 2.2 global hectares.

Global warming is an occurrence that is well documented, with average global surface temperatures now 1.5 °F (0.83 °C) higher than at the start of the industrial revolGlobal warming is an occurrence that is well documented, with average global surface temperatures now 1.5 °F (0.83 °C) higher than at the start of the industrial revolglobal surface temperatures now 1.5 °F (0.83 °C) higher than at the start of the industrial revolution.

For the coverage uncertainty on the global average to be significantly larger would require the variability in the nineteenth century data gaps to be much larger than in the well observed period.

a) increases in CO2 cause anything but negligible warming; b) increases in average global temperature cause more harm than good

Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2C will require that the increase in greenhouse - gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm).

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Neither is necessarily better than the other, but when computing global averages from the two, you will get different answers from the same data because 2 × 2 and 5 × 5 grids give different weights to the data points.

Since the Call to Action run by the initiative started just 18 months ago, it has grown by an average of more than 2 commitments per week: setting the standard for meaningful corporate climate action that is sufficiently ambitious to help keep global warming well below 2 degrees.

The 2007 IPCC report found that the cost of actions to stabilize concentrations of heat - trapping emissions at a level that gives us a good chance of avoiding dangerous warming would amount to less than a 0.12 percent reduction in average annual global gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate in 2050.

If some really think methods can fabricate a better answer than the actual measurements, why don't we just put a few hundred stations in a sq mile or two, and just use that to calculate a global average, we have a model of how that temps relates to temps thousands of km's away, so what's not to like?

So far, so good, our synthetic net global emissions are similar to Prof. Salby's in that there is an average value of about 1.5 ppm per year, but superimposed on top of that there is an oscillatory behaviour that sometimes reduces net global emissions almost (but not quite) to zero, and sometimes means that net global emissions are much higher than average.

On the other hand, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high, well above the trend line (Fig. 1), despite cooler than average temperature in the tropical Pacific Niño 3.4 region (Fig. 5), which usually provides an indication of the tropical Pacific effect on global temperature.

I also imagine that the regional variations Mike emphasized might well be more relevant than global average.

In fact the Mauna Loa or global CO2 rise is much faster than linear... the differences between the mauna loa / global are negligible for the purpose of radiative transfer, and the difference in average CO2 concentration between an «average global» data - set and the Mauna Loa record since 1980 (for monthly values) is only 0.65 ppm (and with a correlation coefficient r greater than 0.99) indicating that the Mauna Loa record is representative of global - scale CO2 concentration as you'd expect with a well - mixed gas.

In most cases, the real - world accuracy was no better than + / -1 deg C. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions can not yield anything meaningful.

However, ISTM they are asserting that their goodness of fit measure is better than just using «overpredict past warming» (which is probably just a global average temperature?)

It should be using a better estimate of temperature for the missing cells than the global average.

Mike, I have long felt that a decrease in cloudiness better explains such things as glacier retreat than the small increase in global average temperature.

So Perth sea levels haven't risen by up to 10 mm per year since 1993, they aren't rising three times faster than the global average, land subsidence indicates they've been closer to flat and possibly even fallen since 1993, and the leaked IPCC report confirms they've been as stable as global temperatures for well over a decade.

It is well documented that the Arctic is warming at a rate two to three times faster than the global average, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification (AA) 37,38,39.

Labelled as the first - ever universal, legally binding global climate deal, the Paris Agreement was adopted by the 195 UNFCCC Member States at the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21) on 12 December 2015, with a view to hold the Earth's average temperature rise to well below 2 °C, preferably to no more than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

Consider the average number in the life insurance industry is «1», Global Life is well above the average and sees many more complaints than most other companies.