Sentences with phrase «compared temperature observations»

Not exact matches

Next, before coming to their findings, the team compared these growth records to climate observations, examining factors like precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation.

According to their observations, sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic can be up to 1.5 °C warmer in the Gulf Stream region during the positive phase of the AMO compared to the negative, colder phase.

As a consequence, their results are strongly influenced by the low increase in observed warming during the past decade (about 0.05 °C / decade in the 1998 — 2012 period compared to about 0.12 °C / decade from 1951 to 2012, see IPCC 2013), and therewith possibly also by the incomplete coverage of global temperature observations (Cowtan and Way 2013).

Various global temperature projections by mainstream climate scientists and models, and by climate contrarians, compared to observations by NASA GISS.

So you propose it's sensible to compare land surface temperatures with satellite observations that span all around the globe.

Global warming deniers * pull similar dirty tricks with the comparison of global temperature with model projections — for example, by plotting only the tropical mid-troposphere, and by comparing observations with the projections of scenarios which are furthest from reality.

As has been noted by others, this is comparing model temperatures after 2020 to an observation - based temperature in 2015, and of course the latter is lower — partly because it is based on HadCRUT4 data as discussed above, but equally so because of comparing different points in time.

The observations from the Laptev Sea in 2007 indicate that the bottom water temperatures on the mid-shelf increased by more than 3 C compared to the long - term mean as a consequence of the unusually high summertime surface water temperatures.

Hansen et al. (1995) used a simplified GCM to investigate the impacts of various climate forcings on the diurnal cycle of surface air temperature and compared them with observations.

Forest et al. 2006 compares observations of multiple surface, upper air and deep - ocean temperature changes with simulations thereof by the MIT 2D climate model run at many climate parameter settings.

The scientists, using computer models, compared their results with observations and concluded that global average annual temperatures have been lower than they would otherwise have been because of the oscillation.

Quantitatively, Vasskog et al. estimate that during this time (the prior interglacial) the GrIS was «probably between ~ 7 and 60 % smaller than at present,» and that that melting contributed to a rise in global sea level of «between 0.5 and 4.2 m.» Thus, in comparing the present interglacial to the past interglacial, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently 30 % higher, global temperatures are 1.5 - 2 °C cooler, GrIS volume is from 7 - 67 % larger, and global sea level is at least 0.5 - 4.2 m lower, none of which observations signal catastrophe for the present.

If the observation that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years is accurate, then debating short term variations of atmospheric CO2 when compared to short term temperature variations of that atmosphere seems pointless.

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe.

Compare the SAR and the TAR for example, and since then we have many more proxy reconstructions to consider, the satellite analyses corrected, new data about energy imbalances, better observations of ocean currents and temperature, ice sheet behaviour in Greenland and Antarctica and much much more.

The lighter shaded areas depict the change in this uncertainty range, if carbon cycle feedbacks are assumed to be lower or higher than in the medium setting... Global mean temperature results from the SCM for anthropogenic and natural forcing compare favourably with 20th - century observations (black line) as shown in the lower left panel (Folland et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2001; Jones and Moberg, 2003).

Part II concludes with a chapter that compares the temperature records of the three types of observations and presents possible reasons for the observed temperature trend differences.break

«Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates» «Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data» «Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures» «Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends» «Reconciling warming trends» «Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled» «Reconciling controversies about the «global warming hiatus»»

SummaryFor two years beginning in 2013, a large team led by Sanjay Limaye set out to combine and compare the following: Venusian atmospheric data collected by probes in the 1970s and 1980s (used to create the Venus International Reference Atmosphere, or VIRA) Venus Express data on the vertical and horizontal structure of the atmosphereEarth - based observations of the upper atmosphere temperature structure of Venus made since VIRAFigure 1a: Vertical coverage of post-VIRA atmospheric structure experi....

Lindzen (2011) reports that Wentz et al. (2007) used space - based observations to measure how evaporation changed with temperature compared with results from models and found that in GCMs, evaporation rose 1 - 3 % for each 1 K warming, while observed evaporation rose approximately three times faster, at 5.7 %.

Compared to previous HadEX / CMIP3 - based results, which identified human contributions to the observed warming of extreme temperatures on global and regional scales, the current results provide better agreement with observations, particularly for the intensification of warm extremes.

Both simulations exhibit cold biases compared with observations over WCan, with the bias exacerbated at higher resolution, suggesting little added value for temperature overall.

Appearing on - line in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (and sans press release) is a paper led by Penn State's Martin Tingley that examined how the temperature response from volcanic inferred from tree - rings compared with that of observations.

Estimates of natural variability from an AOGCM provide a critical input in deriving, by comparing temperature estimates from the simple model with observations, a likelihood function for the parameters jointly at each possible combination of parameter settings (and in one or two cases AOGCMs provide surrogates for some of the observational data).

Even with the generally large spatial coherence and correlation length scales of temperature anomalies at polar latitudes (e.g. Hansen et al. 1999; Chapman and Walsh 2007), none of the reconstruction methods can escape the basic limitation of few in situ observations in West Antarctica, and all exhibit less skill in this region compared with other regions of the continent.

The figure 6 compares the model near - surface temperatures from 50 degrees South to 75 degrees South latitude to the observations.

I am comparing the rate of warming, or the trends of temperatures between observations and the models.

For example, Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) used a semi-empirical method linking temperature changes to sea level rise, which they validated by comparing observed sea level to reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature observations from 1880 to 2000.

Second, orbital instrumental observations provide only a recent record of land surface area temperature assessment, and the methods involved had to be calibrated against the prevailing standards of proximal thermometric determination, the widely - ranged system of meteorological thermometers in these United States providing (as others here have observed) a sort of «gold standard» in terms of technology, maintenance, and reliability as compared with similar broadly spaced systems of monitoring stations.

In the first part, the RCMs were driven using observation - based data products and their output was compared to observational data, in order to determine how well the RCMs could represent temperature and precipitation, both annually and seasonally.

You wrote, «By comparing the average temperature from these simulations to current observation, the author is confusing climate with weather.»

Dana Nuccitelli presented a talk on climate model accuracy — comparing past global temperature projections to observations, and effectively debunking associated myths.

The results are compared to observations of things like changing global temperatures, local temperatures, and precipitation patterns.

When compared (validated) against historical sea ice observations it was found that the reconstruction not only had a dominant temperature - related signal, but that the proxy - based reconstruction also had a second signal which corresponded with variations in sea ice cover (extent), therefore confirming the 2nd network signal was a proxy for Arctic sea ice cover (as shown in figure 1).

«In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it's the long - term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5 - year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations...»

If you are trying to test the hypothesis that climate models have not predicted the pause since 1998, then you should be comparing trends between models and observations, rather than seeing if the observed temperature anomalies lie within a broad envelope of climate model simulations.

The ACORN - SAT dataset is an analysis of Australian temperature observations since 1910 that provides a record of temperatures that can be compared through time.

Microwave brightness temperatures are simulated at SSM / I frequencies and are compared with the observations.

«ARCTIC: Data finds seawater temperature decrease that spells trouble Data from the Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight - week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a «surprising» one degree Celsius compared to previous observations.

Let's look in more detail at the paper's key figure, the one that looks at past and (forecast) future global temperatures, «Hindcast / forecast decadal variations in global mean temperature, as compared with observations and standard climate model projections» (click to enlarge)

More recent documentation (Hansen et al. 2010) compares alternative analyses and addresses questions about perception and reality of global warming; various choices for the ocean data are tested; it is also shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited.

The study compares detailed daily observations of cloud cover from Japan's GMS - 5 Geostationary Meteorological Satellite with sea surface temperature data from the U. S. National Weather Service's National Centers for Environmental Prediction over a 20 - month period (January 1998 to August 1999).

this page is an ongoing effort to compare observations of global temperature with CMIP5 simulations assessed by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

Figure 3: Various global temperature projections by mainstream climate scientists and models, and by climate contrarians, compared to observations by NASA GISS.

(Left) Sea surface temperature averaged over the North Atlantic (75 - 7.5 W, 0 - 60N), in the HADGEM2 - ES model (ensemble mean red; standard deviation yellow) compared with observations (black), as discussed in Booth et al 2012.