Sentences with phrase «estimated mean surface»
It is no surprise there is significant disagreement over the amount of warming estimated — as James Hansen and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies explain7, there is no clear definition of what we mean by absolute surface air temperature and wide variation in the estimated mean surface temperature of the planet.
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/ Not exact matches
They estimated that land - use changes in the continental United States since the 1960s have resulted in a rise in the mean surface temperature of 0.25 degree Fahrenheit, a figure Kalnay says «is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone.»
One could assume that there was minimal global mean surface temperature change between 1750 and 1850, as some datasets suggest, and compare the 1850 - 2000 temperature change with the full 1750 - 2000 forcing estimate, as in my paper and Otto et al..
«Moreover, our estimate of 0.27 C mean surface warming per century due to land - use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone7, 8.»
Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74 °C ± 0.18 °C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906 — 2005).
Global mean temperatures averaged over land and ocean surfaces, from three different estimates, each of which has been independently adjusted for various homogeneity issues, are consistent within uncertainty estimates over the period 1901 to 2005 and show similar rates of increase in recent decades.
Firstly, what is the best estimate of the global mean surface air temperature anomaly?
The mean perpendicular edge motion across the entire brain surface produces a change image that can be converted into estimates of rate of atrophy reflecting changes in both grey and white matter [31].
When differences in scaling between previous studies are accounted for, the various current and previous estimates of NH mean surface temperature are largely consistent within uncertainties, despite the differences in methodology and mix of proxy data back to approximately A.D. 1000... Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH.
This can be as simple as assuming an estimate of the global mean surface temperature anomaly is truly global when it in fact has large gaps in regions that are behaving anomalously.
While this is reasonable for looking at changes over time, it is certainly not an estimate of the true mean of the surface temperature of the globe.
«The global mean latent heat flux is required to exceed 80 W m — 2 to close the surface energy balance in Figure 2.11, and comes close to the 85 W m — 2 considered as upper limit by Trenberth and Fasullo (2012b) in view of current uncertainties in precipitation retrieval in the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP, Adler et al., 2012)(the latent heat flux corresponds to the energy equivalent of evaporation, which globally equals precipitation; thus its magnitude may be constrained by global precipitation estimates).
Why is this approach not much used for estimating global mean surface temperature change?
However, the CRU global mean combined land air / sea surface temperature estimates for Jan - Aug 2005 lag behind the 1998 annual mean estimate by 0.08 C (0.50 C vs. 58C for 1998) while GISS indicates a lag of 0.02 C.
Thus, given the height and value of the emission temperature, we can get a simple estimate for the surface temperature: 255K + 5.5 km * 6K / km = 288K (= 15oC; close to the global mean estimated from observations given by NCDC of ~ 14oC).
You stated: «Thus, given the height and value of the emission temperature, we can get a simple estimate for the surface temperature: 255K + 5.5 km * 6K / km = 288K (= 15oC; close to the global mean estimated from observations given by NCDC of ~ 14oC).»
Firstly, what is the best estimate of the global mean surface air temperature anomaly?
(The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14 °C (57 °F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.)
By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.
The FAR used simple global climate models to estimate changes in the global mean surface air temperature under various CO2 emissions scenarios.
Let us therefore compare satellite data (UAH6.0) with surface data (GISTEMP Land / Ocean) measured for the Southern Hemisphere (SH), from 1979 till 2015: You hopefully see like me a good correlation between the two, shown by both linear estimates and 60 month running means.
Doubtless a very poor estimate for a well formulated concept of US mean surface temperature.
Dr Curry, the mean model surface temperature trend estimate is ~ 0.20 C / decade compared to Cowtan and Way ~ +0.17 C or GISS ~ +0.16 C (both attempting improved Arctic representation).
Satellites supposedly overcome that concern about UHI by sampling uniformly in order to give a true estimate of global mean surface temperature.
Since 1950, global mean sea surface temperatures have risen roughly 1 ° F (0.6 ° C).6 Scientists estimate that regional sea surface temperatures in the North Sea increased by 1.6 ° F (0.9 ° C) from 1958 to 2002.7
We further estimate that, in most northern hemispheric regions, these changes in the likelihood of extreme summer mean WBGT are roughly an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding changes in the likelihood of extreme hot summers as simply measured by surface air temperature.
Or, in other words, if we assume that AGW necessarily implies that global mean surface temps will rise at some point in the future (although we might argue about estimated probabilities of the extent) on the assumption that mitigating natural variations will cancel out over the long term.
estimated the annual mean global surface warming threshold for nearly ice - free Arctic conditions in September to be ~ 2 °C above...
Because clouds affect sunlight absorbed at the Earth's surface, excluding them means «the range that we estimate for climate sensitivity may be too narrow,» he said.
The estimate of global reservoir GHG emissions presented here is calculated on the basis of the product of bootstrapped estimates of mean areal GHG fluxes and best estimates of global reservoir surface area (as was done in a recent estimate of global methane emissions from streams and rivers, Stanley et al. 2016).
Here, we report mean areal (per unit surface area) CH4 fluxes from reservoir water surfaces that are approximately 25 % larger than previous estimates (120.4 mg CH4 - C per m2 per day, SD = 286.6), CO2 flux estimates that are approximately 30 % smaller than previous estimates (329.7 mg CO2 - C per m2 per day, SD = 447.7), and the first - ever global mean estimate of reservoir N2O fluxes (0.30 mg N2O - N per m2 per day, SD = 0.9; table 1).
The Lewis and Curry paper said the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity — the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration — was 1.64 degrees.
An estimate of the forced response in global mean surface temperature, from simulations of the 20th century with a global climate model, GFDL's CM2.1, (red) and the fit to this evolution with the simplest one - box model (black), for two different relaxation times.
(Someone somewhere I saw recently, maybe in this thread estimated that if all the excess heat in the ocean were distributed to the lower atmosphere instead the global mean surface temperature would be 36 C warmer.
Assuming a full - glacial temperature lapse rate of -6 °C / 1000m, depression of mean annual temperature in glaciated alpine areas was ca 5.4 ± 0.8 °C; it is similar to values of temperature depression (5 - 6.4 °C) for the last glaciation obtained from various terrestrial sites, but contrasts with tropical sea - surface temperature estimates that are only 1 - 3 °C cooler than present.
The historical responsibility is not based on cumulative emissions but instead measured in terms of the countries» estimated contribution to the increase in global - mean surface - air temperature.
GCM mean (dark blue # 1) and envelope (lighter blue) range of global surface temperature projections vs. HadCRUT4 (red # 1) and Cowtan & Way (red # 2) global surface temperature instrumental estimates.
The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean tropospheric temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12 °C to 0.19 °C per decade based on satellite - based estimates (Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16 °C to 0.18 °C per decade for the global surface warming.
We need severities, probability and confidence, scientists» views on the likely roles of different forcings and feedbacks, interpretations of the pause in mean global surface temps, estimates of consequences and benefits of warming, etc..
You mean they weren't talking about the differences between satellite and surface temperature estimates?
Right panels show the predictability horizon for annual mean precipitation (above the dashed line), soil water averaged from the surface, and total water storage (below the dashed line), estimated from the 39 individual 10 member hindcast experiments (red) and the 1st order Markov model with 10,000 ensemble members (black circle) for the b the northern, d southern, and f these difference indices.
The cash value of this is, that all of NASA's estimates of annual mean global surface temperatures come with an uncertainty of + / -(not less than 0.6) °C.
In addition, land stations are allowed to provide temperature estimates for ocean cells where no sea surface temperature is available - in practice, this means that coastal stations around the Arctic provide temperature readings for the pole.
B) A low - range optimistic estimate of 2 °C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth's global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago.
We compare simulation cooling from the combined forcing to a GMT reconstruction, based on a global mean sea surface temperature reconstruction (43) that we scaled by the factor 1.84 so as to match estimated LGM cooling (ref.
We obtain an absolute temperature scale using the Jones et al. [69] estimate of 14 °C as the global mean surface temperature for 1961 — 1990, which corresponds to approximately 13.9 °C for the 1951 — 1980 base period that we normally use [70] and approximately 14.4 °C for the first decade of the twenty - first century.
Meanwhile, the CET is a point estimate for one location on Earth's surface, and should never be misconstrued as truly representative of the global annual mean temperature, or the Northern Hemesphere annual mean temperature..
On the time - varying trend in global - mean surface temperature ``... we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~ 65 - year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08 deg C per decade since ~ 1980.»
`... over the 100 years since 1870 the successive five year values of average temperatures in England have been highly significantly correlated with the best estimates of the averages for the whole Northern Hemisphere and for the whole earth» (In this last comment he is no doubt referring to his work at CRU where global surface records back to 1860 or so were eventually gathered) he continued; «they probably mean that over the last three centuries the CET temperatures provide a reasonable indication of the tendency of the global climatic regime.»
«The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 1018 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5 × 1015 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate.