Sentences with phrase «enough temperature estimates»

The meat of the matter is why the different adjustment procedures don't agree and if there is any way to get accurate enough temperature estimates to make useful estimates of the accumulated energy.

Not exact matches

The CDR potential and possible environmental side effects are estimated for various COA deployment scenarios, assuming olivine as the alkalinity source in ice ‐ free coastal waters (about 8.6 % of the global ocean's surface area), with dissolution rates being a function of grain size, ambient seawater temperature, and pH. Our results indicate that for a large ‐ enough olivine deployment of small ‐ enough grain sizes (10 µm), atmospheric CO2 could be reduced by more than 800 GtC by the year 2100.

«The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs,» said Ms. Figueres.

Enough for a good estimate of global temperature go back to 1850, which by my calculation is 167 years ago.

Given those assumptions, looking at the forcing over a long - enough multi-decadal period and seeing the temperature response gives an estimate of the transient climate response (TCR) and, additionally if an estimate of the ocean heat content change is incorporated (which is a measure of the unrealised radiative imbalance), the ECS can be estimated too.

From Figure 1 it looks as though a window of no more than 120 months, and preferably only 60 months is desirable to capture the changing distribution of temperature anomalies, however a shorter window may not provide enough data to reliably estimate the uncertainty.

For the rest of the world, the Historical Climatology Network datasets didn't actually have enough rural stations with sufficiently long records to estimate global temperature trends.

For about 200 of the urban stations, they do not have enough rural neighbours for their computer program to work, and so these unadjusted urban stations are not included in their global temperature estimates.

The problem is that there's also a lot of extra variability in CET and that the available data is not sufficient for estimating well enough how much CET can tell about the wider temperature trends at other times.

But linear regression is known to give the best possible unbiased estimate of its parameters for any linear function of the data — if a regression can not give a reliable enough estimate of the global average temperature, it seems inevitable that the current method must be worse.

Toggweiler for example estimates that the opening of the Drake Passage improve the rate of ocean mixing enough to produce roughly a 4 C magnitude «abrupt» change in «global» surface temperature.

Good enough models may eventually provide an estimate of the effect of CO2 on recent surface temperature changes.

But the estimates of «one to seven years» means that there will be no periods in the 21st century when temperatures are low enough to keep the corn earworm from damaging crops.

Choice 3: Can we devise a carbon tax flexible enough to deal with the above uncertainties that: a) is fully refunded to every citizen and exporters, b) collected from importers, c) rises exponentially with future temperature change, d) responds to the willingness and effectiveness of other nations to limit their emissions, and e) provides reasonable economic incentives to reduce emissions if the IPCC's central estimates are correct?

We can at best estimate that natural variability is an order of magnitude or two smaller than the GHE for climate timescales, which is good enough, since our precision on temperatures on climate timescales barely has enough significant digits to be affected by a two order of magnitude lower effect.

Enough climate change and forcing has occurred that a rule of thumb might be to take the change (whether in temperature or sea level) up to 2000 and triple it as an estimate for 2100.

only since the mid-1960s that the instrumentation has been stable enough and sufficiently well documented for these measurements to be of use for estimating global temperature changes.

I used the word «consistent» because observational data are not yet accurate enough to prove the existence of an imbalance (e.g. 0.9 W / m ^ 2) capable of significant temperature effect but too small to be precisely estimated as the exact difference between two large numbers in the range of 239 W / m ^ 2.

A conservative estimate is that a 0.1 percent change in solar total radiation will bring about a temperature response of 0.06 to 0.2 °C, providing the change persists long enough for the climate system to adjust.

This means that reanalysis and estimates based solely on temperature measurements can differ slightly — and enough to affect the ranking of the warmest years.

Christiana Figueres quote: «The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.»

Traditionally, the notion has been that it is enough to give the tropopause forcing for the well - mixed gases in order to obtain an estimate of the surface temperature response.

As the summer waxed, old temperature records fell all over the Northern hemisphere; in Russia the heatwave would be brutal enough to kill 11,000 people in Moscow alone, and would cost the nation an estimated 7 - 15 billion US dollars.

If you're a believer in strong natural variability, and you're looking to criticize the IPCC, you might complain that they don't reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity enough, or that they don't adequately discuss the increased evidence of the importance of natural variability in affecting temperatures from decade to decade.