Sentences with phrase «global average area»

Graphs show a) Global average wildfire season length (expressed as a standardised anomaly), and b) Total global average area experiencing «long» wildfire seasons (as a % of global vegetated area)-- both from 1979 to 2013.

Not exact matches

On one hand, areas of high climatic stability are predicted to warm less than the global average.

When in January rainfall was double the expected average over wide areas, many people made cautious links between such extreme weather and global climate change.

As we flood the atmosphere with more CO2, and average global temperatures rise, some areas of the planet are getting wetter.

So if you think of going in [a] warming direction of 2 degrees C compared to a cooling direction of 5 degrees C, one can say that we might be changing the Earth, you know, like 40 percent of the kind of change that went on between the Ice Age; and now are going back in time and so a 2 - degree change, which is about 4 degrees F on a global average, is going to be very significant in terms of change in the distribution of vegetation, change in the kind of climate zones in certain areas, wind patterns can change, so where rainfall happens is going to shift.

«The findings for Niassa National Reserve are particularly encouraging in the African context because deforestation rates on the continent are five times higher than the global average, and many protected areas in Africa are losing a lot more forest.»

It's an area described as a climate «hot spot,» with temperatures in many parts rising faster than the global average.

The report finds that the U.S. is particularly vulnerable to projected sea level rise; areas such as the Northeast and western Gulf of Mexico could face rates that exceed global average sea level rise.

In Arctic areas, global warming is happening at roughly twice the average speed, which has allowed Alaska's trumpeter swans to expand their breeding grounds northward into regions that were previously too cold, according to a study published in Wildlife Biology in December.

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90 °C (1.62 °F) above the 20th century average of 13.9 °C (57.0 °F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16 °C (0.29 °F).

Parts of the northwestern Pacific, the North Atlantic south of Greenland, and regions in the southern oceans near Antarctica were were cooler or much cooler than average, with no areas of the global oceans record cold.

These correlations were negative, suggesting that when average fire weather seasons are longer - than - normal or when long seasons impacted more global burnable area, net global terrestrial carbon uptake is reduced.

Temperature changes relative to the corresponding average for 1901 - 1950 (°C) from decade to decade from 1906 to 2005 over the Earth's continents, as well as the entire globe, global land area and the global ocean (lower graphs).

Globally, extremely warm nights that used to come once in 20 years now occur every 10 years.12 And extremely hot summers, those more than three standard deviations above the historic average, are now observed in about 10 % of the global land area, compared to 0.1 - 0.2 % for the period 1951 - 1980.13

In effect, the HadCrut4 and NOAA GlobalTemp global series simplistically assume temperature change in the Arctic and other missing areas matches on average that measured in the rest of the globe.

Even though these are the same areas that tend to have above average temperatures during El Niño winters, this pattern is also consistent with the long - term trend we are seeing with global warming.

According to the results, the area covered by carbon - rich frozen ground in the Arctic is expected to shrink by 4m square km for every extra degree that global average surface temperature rises.

In other words, is an «area average» a good way to determine the actual global trend?

There were only two areas in the global market where the average active manager outperformed over the previous 10 years, and they didn't do it by much.

Human induced trend has two components, namely (a) greenhouse effect [this includes global and local / regional component] and (b) non-greenhouse effect [local / regional component]-- according to IPCC (a) is more than half of global average temperature anomaly wherein it also includes component of volcanic activities, etc that comes under greenhouse effect; and (b) contribution is less than half — ecological changes component but this is biased positive side by urban - heat - island effect component as the met network are concentrated in urban areas and rural - cold - island effect is biased negative side as the met stations are sparsely distributed though rural area is more than double to urban area.

Use those area - weights to construct the regional / global averages.

It seems clear that the UHI effect is a real physical effect and the complaint from AGW skeptics and denialists is that the strong (and real) warming in urban areas is contaminating regional and global temperature averages.

I have thought for a while that the «problem» would go away if the the regional and global averages were area - weighted averages of the data from the various weather stations.

On average, the analysis covers the equivalent of 71 % of the total global land area, 17 % more than in previous studies.

[Response: While the raw data at any one station at any one time obviously doesn't change, the value for any regional or global average in the past is always an estimate since there isn't a perfect network of measurements across the whole area.

One solution which has different assumptions than what is used to define the HadCRUT4 global values, would be to calculate the zonal means first and then area weight those — which assumes that missing data warms at the same rate as the local zonal average as opposed to the global means.

Regarding the «global ice at 1980 levels», here is the canned response we wrote in rebuttal to the astonishingly twisted piece in Daily Tech: What the graph shows is that the global sea ice area for early January 2009 is on the long term average (zero anomaly).

(Remember that the Earth's surface area is about 4 times it's cross section and it has an albeod of approximately 0.3, so the global time average solar heating of the Earth is approximately (1366/4 * 0.7) W / m2 ~ = 239 W / m2 (ignoring significant figures there)-RRB-.

Having said that, it is a really small effect — if the entire Arctic summer sea ice pack melted (average thickness 2 metres, density ~ 920 kg / m3, area 3 × 10 ^ 6 km ^ 2 (0.8 % total ocean area) = > a 4.5 cm rise instantly which implies a global sea level rise of 0.36 mm.

Yes, there was work for geoscientists in diversified areas before «global warming» became known to average people and they would have gone into any number of subjects as a graduate student if human induced changes in greenhouse turned out (after calculation and experiment) to be unimportant at a global scale.

In the North Atlantic, the measured values differ markedly from the average global warming: the subpolar Atlantic (an area about half the size of the USA, south of Greenland) has hardly warmed up and in some cases even cooled down, contrary to the global warming trend.

The model for ocean areas is likely to affect global averages much more than the model for land areas.

If average global temperatures rise by just 3 °C, then Europe's drought risk could increase to double the area faced with drying out.

While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent.

Arbetter, 4.7, Statistical A statistical model using regional observations of sea ice area and global NCEP air temperature, sea level pressure, and freezing degree day estimates continues the trend of projecting below - average summer sea ice conditions for the Arctic.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three - quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

The right - hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) «best estimate» climate sensitivity of 3 °C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C (red line at top of shaded area)(iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2 °C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).

This sounds like another area - averaged statistical boondoggle, like global temperature anomaly.

Add on the normal summer increase (globally) of 27C / 50F and we will have global average summer temps of @ 49C / 122F not just over small isolated areas, but over huge areas / countries / states / counties.

Global average temperature increases of 0.74 °C are already documented, and temperature increases in some areas are projected to exceed 3.0 °C over the next decade.

The temperature that climate scientists typically reference and care about with regard to climate change is «the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas».

Upper chart: Global average land area (in million hectares) in drought recovery for first year of each decade from 1901 to 2001.

NASA's Schmidt «extrapolated» warm temperature figures across a «huge area of below normal temperatures» and «massively skewed his global average anomaly using a large area of fake +6 C anomaly.»

There is little doubt that a global average rise in temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius would render a majority of our planet's 100 - largest urban areas non-viable due to water supply shortages and cause immense refugee flows.

For instance, it found that for the year 2040 on the worst - case emissions pathway, the global average sea - level rise would be 0.2 meters (0.65 feet), but «more than 90 percent of coastal areas will experience sea level rise exceeding the global estimate.»

So what you really want is a good canary in the coal mine and the high latitude areas are canaries, whereas the global average hides real stress.

HadSST3 is not interpolated, so when we calculate the global average we aren't doing anything fancy; we just take the area - weighted mean of the available grid boxes.

The problem is that we are looking for the average of the actual global temperature changes for Earth where some areas warm more rapidly than others and some areas cool.

So, for example, the range indicated by the blue area in the upper panel for 2006 shows the range of global annual averages obtained by reducing the coverage of 2006 successively to be at least as bad as 1850, 1851, 1852 and so on to 1899.

We talk about temperatures in high latitude areas, like the Arctic, because, as a general rule, high latitude areas are much more sensitive to human stress than the global average.