Sentences with phrase «global averages over time»

Not exact matches

At the time of writing, Seoul - based cryptocurrency exchanges Upbit and Bithumb each priced Bitcoin at about $ 9,100, which represented a roughly five percent premium over the coin's global average, although these platforms accounted for just a combined four percent of total Bitcoin trading volume.

We came up with numbers that business as usual would give you: losses, averaged over space, over time and uncertain outcomes, of around 5 percent of global gross domestic product and upwards, probably substantially more than 5 percent of GDP.

Also, for those interested, on page 41 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Synthesis Report, is found a description of their Key Finding # 2 which includes the statement «Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times the global average.»

«Global mean time series of surface - and satellite - observed low - level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets... The surface - observed low - level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5 % - sky - cover increase between 1952 andGlobal mean time series of surface - and satellite - observed low - level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets... The surface - observed low - level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5 % - sky - cover increase between 1952 andglobal ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5 % - sky - cover increase between 1952 and 1997.

Editorially, Kiplinger's magazine has championed over the decades a number of personal finance strategies and investment products that later became popular «conventional wisdom»: the superiority of systematic investing (dollar cost averaging) over market timing; growth stocks that paid little or no dividends but invested in new technologies; mutual funds, especially no - load funds; stock index funds; term life insurance, rather than whole - life; and global investing.

In a 2004 update, the late Lou Lowenstein showed again that the returns over time of ten value funds (including our own First Eagle Global) were much above average.

In global average, the number of unprecedented heat records over the past ten years is five times higher than in a stationary climate, based on 150,000 temperature time series starting in the year 1880.

Also, for those interested, on page 41 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Synthesis Report, is found a description of their Key Finding # 2 which includes the statement «Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times the global average.»

C is not constant for the dT» / dt equation to apply because heat penetrates through different parts of the climate system (different depths of the ocean in particular) over different time scales (also, if T» is supposed to be at some reference location or the global average at some vertical level, T» at other locations will vary; C will have to be an effective C value, the heat per unit change in the T» at the location (s) where T» occurs)

The effect of the 2007 cooling on the average global temperature over time was to negate the hardly unusual increase of a little more than one degree centigrade since about the 1890's.

Clearly the rate at which TOA imbalance diffuses into and through the global ocean is key to how much and how quickly global average surface temperature will rise over any given span of time.

OHC may be one of the best measures of the top of atmosphere imbalance available - averaged over long time periods, global, representing (for the full depth of the oceans) ~ 93 % of the energy changes.

Bottom: An «anomaly plot»; the annual global temperature trend over time where the average from 1951 — 1980 is set to 0.

The interesting 2nd plot of Berkeley TAVG temperature anomalies over the same time frame, also plotted as a 21 - year running average, shows anomalous global warming since 1975 appears unrelated to group sunspot activity.

Global Temperature is an example of a bulk property, and it does indeed average out over sufficient time scales; hence showing that whatever chaos, spatio - temporal or otherwise, is present in the system on short timescales it does not affect our longer term predictions.

The Arctic has been warming at more than twice the rate of the globe as a whole, with average temperatures today 5.4 °F (3 °C) above what they were at the beginning of the 20th century, compared to an estimated global average of 1.8 °F (1 °C) over the same time.

Given ocean surface is over twice land surface and some of the land some of the time is quite wet this drags down the average that CO2 warming can acheive on a global basis.

How much must I reduce my greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if I want to do my fair share to contribute towards the global effort to keep global warming below a 2 °C rise in average temperature over preindustrial times?

Over geologic time, increases in carbon dioxide almost always caused increases in the average global temperatures.

Overall, the energy intensity of the global economy would need to drop by a yearly average of 2.5 % up to 2050 — three - and - a-half times greater than the rate over the past 15 years.

But the function we are interested in at the moment is the time function of Planck weighted global average optical thickness of atmosphere in the thermal IR and its trend over the last several decades.

However, over long time periods, the variation of the global average temperature with CO2 concentration depends on various factors such as the placement of the continents on Earth, the functionality of ocean currents, the past history of the climate, the orientation of the Earth's orbit relative to the Sun, the luminosity of the Sun, the presence of aerosols in the atmosphere, volcanic action, land clearing, biological evolution, etc..

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

1) You suggested that photosynthesis was inappropriately ignored in K&T's diagram (which by definition gives global averages over long time - scales).

10 °C rises in global average temperatures have not only occurred during the last 600 million years, but they are the defining characteristic of the temperature record over that time.

Parker's null effect was in searching for a trend in UHI: an increase over time, globally, to see if that could be used as an alternative explanation for the increase in global average temperature.

Despite these reclassifications, the general conclusions are similar from previous work: (1) global temperature anomalies for each phase (El Niño, La Niña, and neutral) have been increasing over time and (2) on average, global temperatures during El Niño years are higher than neutral years, which in turn, are higher than La Niña years.

I'll look at that web site (from where you provided the images) in more detail when I have a chance — at a first glance, though, where they assert «that the satellite data is inconclusive regarding any discernible trends in the global yearly average temperature over the last 25 years», is a bit odd, given the > 95 % statistical confidence in warming over that time period (as per @ 30).

In any case that is still irrelevent since the true average global mean temperature over whatever baseline 30 year or whatever time frame they choose, is also a completely unknown number for the very same sampling failure reasons.

I just published a post on my blog about the interaction of CO2 and average global temps over geologic time and it seems that CO2 has had very little effect on those temps.

The CO2 doubling response from CM2.6, over 70 - 80 years, shows that upper - ocean (0 - 300 m) temperature in the Northwest Atlantic Shelf warms at a rate nearly twice as fast as the coarser models and nearly three times faster than the global average.

On this basis (and with some model - derived feedback estimates based on theoretical considerations plus some model - based assumptions on increase of human GHGs over time) IPCC has projected future changes in global average temperature and resulting impacts on our environment.

Accounting for the TOPEX - A instrumental correction for the first 6 years of the altimetry data set, these studies provided a revised global mean sea level time series that slightly reduces the average GMSL rise over the altimetry era (from 3.3 mm / yr to 3.0 mm / yr) but shows clear acceleration over 1993 - present.

To compare this with AGW, AR5 Table AII.2 yields an annual average year - round and global forcing increase averaged over the last 30 years of +0.026 Wm ^ -2 / year, many times higher than the part - year, part - globe CSI which is also a small part of the insolation changes over the last 1,000 years, an effect which is adjudged, with or without any omission, to be insignificant in comparison to AGW.

My conclusion is that a careful observation of weather patterns over the entire globe and, in particular, ascertaining whether there is a net average surface movement of air towards the poles or towards the equator should reveal whether there is an overall global warming or cooling trend at any particular time.

If we continue to emit ever - greater quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then average global temperatures will rise by 2 °C over the next three decades compared to pre-industrial times.

The reality will be rather different If we continue to emit ever - greater quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then average global temperatures will rise by 2 °C over the next three decades compared to pre-industrial times.

For a global average, you take many data sets and average them together over a certain time interval.

In short, the global climate models used in the IPCC reports have been very good at predicting the underlying human - caused global surface warming trend, beneath the short - term noise which will average out to zero over time.

I believe it is more likely that something else is driving both the global temperature averages, as well as the PDO, AMO, and SOI changes over that same time period.

In the 66 % 2 °C Scenario, aggressive efficiency measures would be needed to lower the energy intensity of the global economy by 2.5 % per year on average between 2014 and 2050 (three - and - a-half times greater than the rate of improvement seen over the past 15 years); wind and solar combined would become the largest source of electricity by 2030.

iii) Over the last 3 decades, every individual station north of 70o indicates warming, 13 of 17 are significant at 95 % confidence, all estimated trend rates are faster than the global average, some are more than five times as fast.

There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1 - 4 °C (relative to 1990 - 2000), causing a contribution to sea - level rise of 4 - 6 m or more.

The last time in Earth history when the global average surface temperature was as warm as the IPCC projects for 2100 in its mid-range scenarios, there was very little polar ice and sea level would have been roughly 70 meters (over 200 feet) higher than at present.

Over that time, the globally averaged temperature difference between the depth of an ice age and a warm interglacial period was 4 to 6 °C — comparable to that predicted for the coming century due to anthropogenic global warming under the fossil - fuel - intensive, business - as - usual scenario.

The analyses are based on calculating temperature differences at one point in time relative to the average over a certain period (anomalies) and creating a time series of averaged global temperature change.

Until climatologists can properly make models that reflect the entire global history and take into account plate position and how high the plates ride, oceanic levels due to this and the position of oceans, overall insolation, overall daylength and its effects on average global temperature and factor in known carbon dioxide levels over that time period, then they will be unable to give any correlation between current carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.

ECS is the increase in the global annual mean surface temperature caused by an instantaneous doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 relative to the pre-industrial level after the model relaxes to radiative equilibrium, while the TCR is the temperature increase averaged over 20 years centered on the time of doubling at a 1 % per year compounded increase.

For global average sea level, the main control on water density over these times is ocean temperature, with warming causing thermal expansion by roughly 0.4 m per degree C (Levermann et al., 2013).

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.html 100 years of shift does not factor into the larger scale phenomena http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough.html Until climatologists can properly make models that reflect the entire global history and take into account plate position and how high the plates ride, oceanic levels due to this and the position of oceans, overall insolation, overall daylength and its effects on average global temperature and factor in known carbon dioxide levels over that time period, then they will be unable to give any correlation between current carbon dioxide levels and global temperature.