Sentences with phrase «global sea temp»

Does this show a cooling global sea temp representation?

Not exact matches

The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source, then gradually tackle coal / fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

due to co2 we are already living in a greenhouse.Whatever one does in that greenhouse will remain in the greenhouse.INDUSTRIOUS HEAT will remain in the greenhouse instead of escaping into outer space; this is a far greater contributor to global warming than other factors and far more difficult to reduce without reducing economic activity.Like warm moist air from your mouth on cold mornings so melting antarctic ice will turn into cloud as it meets warm moist air from tropics the seas will not rise as antarctica is a huge cloud generator.A thick band of cloud around the earth will produce even temps accross the whole earth causing the wind to moderate even stop.WE should be preparing for this possible scenario»

If global surface temp goes up 1 degree, does the sea level rise 3.4 mm per year for ever?

The most exciting thing is we'll get a chance to see the relative strength of all of these over the next few years, and it will most interesting to compare the total decade of 2010 - 2019 to previous decades in terms of the trends in Arctic Sea ice, Global Temps, and of course, OHC.

This would certainly explain why arctic sea ice cover has been absolutely crashing in recent years while the HARDCRU / GISS global average temps had been increasing more modestly.

What is most remarkable to me during the period the last few years during the long and deep solar minimum is that we didn't see global temps even fall more, nor did we see the Arctic Sea ice mount more of a recovery.

Apparently, since data such as the all time record HIGH Antarctic sea ice, advancing Arctic sea ice, slowing to non existent GMSL at less than 2 / mm annual (and negative in some recent years), flat to lower global temps for almost 2 decades, and all the myriads of other associated data... flatly, empirically, REFUTE this cadre of AGW grant leaching con artists pretending to do science with grossly false models....

R. Gates says: August 20, 2010 at 7:28 am ``... What is most remarkable to me during the period the last few years during the long and deep solar minimum is that we didn't see global temps even fall more, nor did we see the Arctic Sea ice mount more of a recovery...»

It is your icons in the «climate science consensus» community that pushed supposedly global surface air temperatures (occasionally combined with supposedly global sea surface temps) as «Global Average Temperature.&global surface air temperatures (occasionally combined with supposedly global sea surface temps) as «Global Average Temperature.&global sea surface temps) as «Global Average Temperature.&Global Average Temperature.»

«Global Warming» has been sold since 1988 on the basis of the land surface and sea surface temp reports.

1 — did the circulation - driven fall in Arctic sea ice (which AR4 models don't do a great job of) have anything to do with the recent jump in Arctic temperatures and if so, could we get the «right» global temp trend for the «wrong» reasons.

Translating the above to climate science, if you tell me that in 100 years earth inhabited by your children is going to hell in a handbasket, because our most complicated models built with all those horrendously complicated equestions you can find in math, show that the global temperatures will be 10 deg higher and icecaps will melt, sea will invade land, plant / animal ecosystem will get whacked out of order causing food supply to be badly disrupted, then I, without much climate science expertise, can easily ask you the following questions and scrutinize the results: a) where can I see that your model's futuristic predictions about global temp, icecaps, eco system changes in the past have come true, even for much shorter periods of time, like say 20 years, before I take this for granted and make radical changes in my life?

RE: 4th Error -RCB- Poses an objection to the non-scientific term catastrophic [NOTE: Scientific «consensus» is often being used & / or implied in standard climate - change discourse - Yet Consensus is a Political Term - NOT a Scientific Term]- HOWEVER - When Jim Hansen, the IPCC & Al Gore, et - al - go from predicting 450 — 500 ppm CO2 to 800 — 1000ppm by the end of the 21st century -LCB- said to the be highest atmospheric CO2 content in 20 — 30 Million YRS -RCB-; — & estimates for aver global temps by 21st century's end go from 2 * C to 6 * C to 10 * C; — & increased sea level estimates go from 10 - 20 cm to 50 - 60 cm to 1M — 2M -LCB- which would totally submerge the Maldives & partially so Bangladesh -RCB-; — predictions of the total melting of the Himalayan Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ME!

Notwithstanding that 70 % of the global temp is made up of sea temperatures which, prior to 2003, were largely based on throwing a bucket over the side of the boat.

Hi Andrew, Paper you may have, but couldn't find on «The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature» CO2 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Highlights: ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11 — 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Just looking at the long term graph of the past 2000 yrs of global CO2 with sea level rise and global temp clearly shows what's about to happen.

In a crude sense, to the extent that GCMs either replicate an AMO - like phenomenon, or produce large but nonperiodic fluctuations in sea - surface temps (AMO - like in size but not periodicity), then implicitly, the alternative hypothes in those studies (a world without global warming) has a lot more variation in it than this study does.

That settling down into a more stable and truely predictable state will only ocme about by the overwhelming obviousness of the first hand experiences and events as they unfold and are once more creating louder headlines in the media than the so called scandals are now... i.e. new record lows in sea ice, record highs in global temps, and other extremes predicted by AGW models.

You can find similar CO2 / temp ratios if you use global (sea + land), sea only or UAH lower atmosphere temperatures.

But given what we know now about methane release and global temp spikes and sea level rise and so on, we are poised to soon see the eruption of violent weather events on a scale heretofore unimaginable.