Sentences with phrase «comparisons of temperature change»

When I look at the comparisons of temperature change vs. model prediction that you showed us, I see something different from what I think that you see.

Another element left out of the comparison of temperature change by latitude is that there is much less global area in the higher latitudes than in the lower latitudes.

As the comparison of temperature changes post 1990 is the «purpose» of the pseudo-skeptical interest in the FAR projections, the graphs are not suitable for the underlying purpose.

Not exact matches

But now all those numbers pale in comparison, as a paper published online today in Science reports that molecular wires are capable of a 2000 % magnetoresistance change at room temperature.

Here, we report on local and global changes in MHW characteristics over time as recorded by satellite and in situ measurements of sea surface temperature (SST) and defined using a quantitative MHW framework, which allows for comparisons across regions and events1.

They wrote that their comparisons of sea - level pressures, sea - surface temperatures and land - based air temperatures provided «consistent evidence for strong» regulation of temperatures by changes in ocean cycles «from monthly to century time scales.»

But, between 1900 and 2012, they concluded that humanity's temperature - changing influence paled in comparison with that of the intense natural fluctuations of the wild winds and waters of the world's largest ocean.

p.s. To compare to Vahrenholt's forecast, here's a comparison of earlier model projections of global temperature for the IPCC (prediction with the CMIP3 model ensemble used in the 4th IPCC assessment report, published in 2007) with the actual changes in temperature (the four colored curves).

Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing of surface temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1850).

Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well - documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.

«Though mankind's existence on the face of the earth is certainly a variable for generated heat, such heat is insignificant in comparison to the changes in heat from the sun, specifically compared to the changes in Earth's temperature due to the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle.

I read some Hansen papers about «dangerous climate change», but his comparison (notably) with Eemian didn't convince me (beyong global mean temperature of the two periods, there was a huge solar forcing on Greenland during the thermal maximum of Eemian).

Liz: «Though mankind's existence on the face of the earth is certainly a variable for generated heat, such heat is insignificant in comparison to the changes in heat from the sun, specifically compared to the changes in Earth's temperature due to the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle.

High - frequency associations (not shown here) remain strong throughout the whole record, but average density levels have continuously fallen while temperatures in recent decades have risen... As yet, the reason is not known, but analyses of time - dependent regional comparisons suggest that it is associated with a tendency towards loss of «spring» growth response (Briffa et al., 1 999b) and, at least for subarctic Siberia, it may be connected with changes in the timing of spring snowmelt (Vaganov et al., 1999).

Image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years

A comparison of the long term and short term mean for monthly precipitation and temperature from the eight NOAA State of Washington Division 5 Weather Stations (Cascade Mountains) illustrates three important climate changes in the North Cascades for the 1984 - 1994 period.

The changes might not seem significant, but the constant revision of global temperature data from the CRU is very concerning as it makes comparisons to past data slippery.

They wrote that their comparisons of sea - level pressures, sea - surface temperatures and land - based air temperatures provided «consistent evidence for strong» regulation of temperatures by changes in ocean cycles «from monthly to century time scales.»

If, for example, Professor Jones wishes to demonstrate that the atmosphere is warming, he then conducts a test with a small sample, say 15 years, 50 years or 150 years in relation to a reasonable time frame say 2000 years (manipulating the shorter term data to supposedly filter out heat islands and station changes etc), he then uses a comparison to a proxy temperature reconstruction of the last 2000 years, because he doesn't have accurate data for that longer timeframe.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Because of the very large changes on Baffin Island through the early Holocene, including a major reduction of glacier elevation, it is not evident that the recent exposures can in themselves constitute a comparison of Early Holocene and present temperatures, though they definitely show a resumption of the glacier drawdown that was interrupted by the Little Ice Age.

Because the graphs are not suitable for comparison of post 1990 changes in temperature, the original article included a graph for just that purpose:

Nor can one be confident that the contribution of subsea volcanic variability to deep - ocean temperature change is negligible in comparison with that from the atmosphere, particularly when the relative densities of the two media and the distance of the benthic layers from the atmosphere are taken into account.

There was no mention of how these commitments, all together, would impact climate change, nor any scientific connection or comparison — something that is desperately needed if the earth's temperature is going to remain below 2ºC.

Just a suggestion here in preparation for the droves of people who will try and lambast this excellent work, you might want to change the legend colors for the comparison chart above — maybe use Green instead of blue for the lower temperatures?

The CET data for the period indicate a distinct climate shift of some 0.35 degrees centigrade on a 50 year basis, but rather more on a decadal basis, so that well documented era can usefully be our benchmark for temperature comparisons, whilst demonstrating the usefulness of a decadal time scale in determining a change in the climate that is «noticeable» and has an impact on humans and nature.

That's not what the text says: «We derive limits for the forcing (Table 1) by comparison of the spatiotemporal patterns of temperature change in observations and experiments with the Hadley Centre AOGCM.»

The obvious apples - for - apples comparison of 1979 - onwards global surface air temperature changes in models is with ERAinterim global 2 m air temperature.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

Comparison of the observed global - mean temperature record with climate model simulations serves to validate (and better understand) climate model performance and ability to simulate the global - mean temperature component of global climate change in response to radiative forcings.

Natural capital degradation: comparison of measured changes in the average temperature of the atmosphere at the earth's surface between 1875 and 2005 and the projected range of temperature increase during the rest of this century.

We need to see the comparison of GRIP v Vostok rates of change in temperature and rates of change in CO2 with temperature before the Mayan calendar runs out.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the two, always accepting that even after 1980 our land temperature coverage is by no means comprehensive and has that awkward habit of stations changing position.

Which is all to say, that while humanity will adapt to a climate changed world is true, there is no doubt that climate change will create, in comparison to today, let alone a pre-industrial, lower population world, a world that is less bountiful, prone to more extremes of temperature and weather in many places, less fecund — and since we're talking about human adaptation, more difficult to live in and less conducive to human civilization.

The comparison of solar activity change over the past century (0.19 %) and United States temperature change (in K)(0.21 %) assumes that readers are sufficiently ignorant of basic blackbody radiation theory to think that the similarity of the numbers supports their thesis, rather than being convincing evidence against their thesis.

In addition, many of the predicted temperature changes from human - induced global warming pale in comparison to natural variations, from the annual seasons to the ponderous ice ages.

Indeed it has been shown in a comparison of results from the simple model and HadCM2 that the simple model under - estimates the temperature change compared to HadCM2 on longer time - scales (Raper et al., 2001a).

It is successful in predicting change in global mean surface temperature as computed from climate models and it, thus, allows quantitative comparison of the contributions of different agents to climate change.

Hence the deduction of the estimated change in ocean heat uptake from the estimated change in forcing before comparison with the change in global temperature to derive sensitivity.

Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy - based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns).

We'd expect to see the imprint of this large error in comparisons with observed surface temperature changes over the 20th century (37 - 42), and in comparisons with the observed cooling after large volcanic eruptions (30, 43, 44).

Comparisons of observed and modelled trend estimates show that inclusion of anthropogenic effects in the model integrations improves the simulation of these changing temperature extremes, indicating that human influences are probably an important contributor to changes in the number of frost days and warm nights.