Sentences with phrase «global observations if»

«There is a need for global observations if we're going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena.

Not exact matches

Communism, philosophically, is what comes after Capitalism if one is going along with Marxs thesis on the law of motion for economies; he gave no time - table, nor no indication of what this future form of the economy would be like - it could be sometime in the middle of this century, or it could be a millenia away; in his thesis, it is almost tautologically true; until then Marx expected Capitalism to succeed as a global force - this was an earlier observation of Hegel that foresaw that «trade» would become «world - historical» in its European form.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

If we bring these observations to our global classroom, we build even greater understanding among kids and their various, rich cultures.

It is worth quoting from this idiosyncratic piece by Judith Benhamou - Huet about the ascendancy of Hauser + Wirth and Zwirner galleries because it somewhat echoes and confirms the observation made by others that in today's global art world, these two veteran galleries have begun to eclipse (if that's even the appropriate word) Gagosian in the art world's imagination as the most - discussed art enterprises.

If we didn't know about the CO2 - climate connection from physics, then no observation of a warming trend, however accurate, would by itself tell us that anthropogenic global warming is «real,» or (more importantly) that it is going to persist and probably increase.

You can also account for possible errors in the amplitudes of the external forcing and the model response by scaling the signal patterns to best match the observations without influencing the attribution from fingerprinting methods, and this provides a more robust framework for attributing signals than simply looking at the time history of global temperature in models and obs and seeing if they match up or not.

Now, if after deep thought, it appears difficult to decide what should be different in the observations (to be allowed to declare the second) can we finally add to the first: «but nobody can say, for sure, that global warming has not actually ceased».

If the predicted cooling by la Nina had not occurred then 2008 would probably have been the same temperature (given the uncertainties) as every year since 2001 and that in itself would require explanation.I am broadly in favour of the global warmingCO2 hypothesis but I know it is just that, a hypothesis — and that needs testing against real observations in the physical world.

Instead, the web special opened with «Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change», which sounds a bit ho - hum, if not, well, duh?

The only way the models can be wrong (in direction) is if they have grossly underestimated natural variability, and a global cooling trend is established in the long term observations.

If observations do not support code predictions — like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global temperatures — Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory.»

This criterion may not be satisfied if observations are available only over a short time period (as is the case for the vertical structure of clouds), or if the predictor is defined through low - frequency variability (trends, decadal variability), or if there is a lack of consistency among available datasets (as in the case for global - mean precipitation and surface fluxes).

If you really want to know what is going on with the global average IR radiation field and you or your experts have some knowledge of quantitative IR radiative transfer, you (or the others) may compute precisely this physical quantity using only first principles and real observations.

It is therefore erroneous to suggest that the estimate of the global average ocean temperature is given by the instrument accuracy divided by the square root of the number of observations (as you would if the observations were of the same quantity):

«[it is] erroneous to suggest that the estimate of the global average ocean temperature is given by the instrument accuracy divided by the square root of the number of observations (as you would if the observations were of the same quantity).»

It shows up well in their Figure 1a about which they state ``... you can see how well the POGA H global average surface temperature matches the observations...» It matches well the phony eighties and nineties and would be off the mark if the real temperatures were substituted.

The deep meaning in Global Temperature for me is the wondrous observation that, in order for life to evolve on planet earth, over four billion years, it seems as if we have never been either completely ice - free or without some open water across the oceans.

Would you still have confidence if a bunch models matched eachother exactly and replicated all global variables with observations exactly, but the model was not based on physical principals?

Yet if the «remedy» were fully deployed to reduce the earth's temperature, then at least 10 years of global climate observations would be needed to separate out the effects of the solar filter from other causes of climatic variability, according to some scientists.

But if you mean by «global warming» all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and «acidification» and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and «unprecedented» and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical observation that its a bit warmer than it was in 1912, then I'm very very sceptical and there are is very little reliable evidence for any of it.

The lighter shaded areas depict the change in this uncertainty range, if carbon cycle feedbacks are assumed to be lower or higher than in the medium setting... Global mean temperature results from the SCM for anthropogenic and natural forcing compare favourably with 20th - century observations (black line) as shown in the lower left panel (Folland et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2001; Jones and Moberg, 2003).

So the answer to your question is «observation», as opposed to the speculation which seems to be very much in vogue among those pushing the ever - floundering Hidden Global Warming hypothesis (if it can even be dignified with such a label).

If they don't, I try to use the observations to figure out what physical processes are missing in the global model and how to represent those processes as realistically as possible, with the goal of gradually increasing our confidence in the model's predictions of the future.

Those who invoke the solar cycle, to which there is no global temperature correlation even if one allows for phase shifts, or who cite possible increases in solar flux, of which observations show none over this warming epoch, are especially off the mark.

The needs of UNFCCC and other users of global climate observations and products can only be addressed if plans are developed and implemented in a coordinated manner by national organizations.

It is the global average SST time series we would have if history had granted us perfect observations at all points and all times, the one True time series.

If some simple model turns ultimately to apply well to some global variables that's not likely to be derivable from first principles but will remain a phenomenological observation.

If there were global temperatures more than 2 °C of 3 °C above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.»

I've posted another message on that thread asking him if there are ANY possible observations that might change his views on the theory of global warming.

Just an observation for you Global Warming kooks: How can we accept as true these theoretical weather scientists about something that has purportedly caused a lot of studying over millions of man hours, if these same scientists can't even agree on where a storm is going in real time?

If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations» lands... which has been either minimal or non-detectable, as opposed to what the AGW fans have been telling us.

If our technique is confounded by this signal, there should be a substantial trend in the inferred global mean temperature over the 20th century in both the models and observations, matching the trend in this signal.

This belief is based on the observation that if a corn plant grew, and then was burned, without any fossil fuel inputs or fertilizer, there would be no net gain in global warming gasses.