Sentences with phrase «global temp clearly»
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.
http://www.realclimate.org/ Not exact matches
The DECC used to show the actual temp data CET data set graph (still only 150 years of it) on the DECC website, but following Phil Jones stating in that BBC interview, 3 similar warming periods, and rates of warming in the last 150 years and that you could clearly see this on the graph, the pronouncement by the DECC that this graph showed «unprecedented» man made global warming, seemed ridiculous.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the «runaway» and «accelerating» global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
---- Reply: This fuss will be moot in 20 years when average global temps have NOT continued on their upward trajectory, rising clearly above the MWP.
4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures), clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked / /... 5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time, ended up with y = 0.0018 x -0.0314, with r2 = 0.96 At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish: I was at least 95 % sure (max) temperatures were falling 6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me y = -0.000049 × 2 + 0.004267 x — 0.056745 r2 = 0.995 That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball... 7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?)
This fuss will be moot in 20 years when average global temps have continued on their upward trajectory, rising clearly above the MWP.
The obvious hockey stick of CO2 leading the way and SLR now clearly accelerating upwards in unison with global temp.
How can anyone possibly defend calculating a global temp / CO2 function when temperature is clearly NOT a function of CO2 for 8,500 years?