Sentences with phrase «global temps as»

Brian Kahn at Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org/news/may-warm-streak-planet-21542 uses the word streak in headline about the rise of global temps, but I think that is the wrong term and leads other narrative types to misunderstand the new normal global temps as a streak that will be broken because streaks do get broken.

The Climate alarmists are now becoming desperate as the great CO2 bogey man is NOT increasing global temps as fast as they predicted, and conversely it is actually increasing bio-diversity and increasing crop growth instead.

The PDO has flipped to cold, the atlantic will follow, by 2030 global temps as measured by objective satellites will return to where they were at the start of the sat era in the late 70s and btw when the pdo flipped from cold to warm.

The next shocker will of course be a precipitous drop in Global temps as predicted by R Spencer.

Not exact matches

The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world of energy and food at a cost of $ 76 trillion over the next 40 year's (UN estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C, without spending a dime.

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.

Dan Kellog, an engineer (not climate scientist) on another blog, has raised the issue of once a glacier has melted away, the local temps could rise dramatically (and perhaps, averaged altogether around the world as glaciers melt away, increase the rate of global warming).

Hammerfest & The Snow White Project Global warming usually suggests images of wild tempests and massive floods, but some countries are trying to tap into what they see as potential benefits of climate change.

'' Official global temp» is all the heat, from the ground to as far up as the oxygen & nitrogen are going / the troposphere.

Dan Kellog, an engineer (not climate scientist) on another blog, has raised the issue of once a glacier has melted away, the local temps could rise dramatically (and perhaps, averaged altogether around the world as glaciers melt away, increase the rate of global warming).

As for the short - term «flutters,» I must say it's amusing — as an observer — to watch skeptics make so much of the China cold snap etc, when many, at the same time, deride the worriers for noting the runup in global temps since the 90As for the short - term «flutters,» I must say it's amusing — as an observer — to watch skeptics make so much of the China cold snap etc, when many, at the same time, deride the worriers for noting the runup in global temps since the 90as an observer — to watch skeptics make so much of the China cold snap etc, when many, at the same time, deride the worriers for noting the runup in global temps since the 90s.

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»

What happens over the next few years is going to be very interesting as to whether the growth snaps back or trends indicate a peak in global temps.

91 Tom said, «What happens over the next few years is going to be very interesting as to whether the growth snaps back or trends indicate a peak in global temps.»

It is known for a fact that the reason the deserts are where they are have nothing to do with global temps and everything to do with global patterns that shift periodically as the result of a multi-variable, and therefore inherently unpredictable, model.

2009 will bring lower global temps than 2008 as well as a lot more ice up north.

As, according to NOAA's global temp maps, there has been a cold blob around in the N Atlantic pretty much since the beginning of «13, I can only assume DMI mean that the record cold Cold Blob (Jan — June» 15) was caused by weather — so we don't have to worry, DMI reassures us, «the N Atlantic overturning circulation has not received it's death blow and then weaken significantly during the foreseeable future» The Böning et al 2016 paper referred to above (Greenland meltwater) is summerized in the DMI article: ``... so far there has not been enough meltwater released to affect the overturning circulation significantly.»

The ensemble would lose all predictive power regardless of what happened to measured global temp, as the error bars would be huge.

Using your definition of «global» as opposed to «local» would think that all the aerosols would be included as they change the global temp.

As at 2016 (2017 the same by the look of it) global temp increases are racking the 8.5 RCP.

The RATE of climate change is as dangerous as the global temp level.

This strong signal for cooling assures us that the Earth's energy budget is such that continued cooling of the global temp to beyond the reaction to the previous ninos, such as 1997 - 98 and 2006 - 07 is highly likely and the coldest monthly and yearly global temp since the 1990s are indeed possible in 2011 and / or 2012.

The earlier attempts (The global cooing scare of the 70s failed) to damage western industrial states failed as temps began rising as the ocean current phases went positive..

-- Both having predicted that Global Warming would End around 2000 as the Earth would return to its falling temps.

I thought it would be something like that, although for a moment I thought Dr Vicki Pope from the Met Office was running a version of her old little graph of global temps, which is aired every now & then, curiously stopped in 2007, demonstrating beyond a doubt the warming going on as usual, just before the 2008 temp step drop & further cooling in 09, so that the trend stayed positive!

The Daily UAH satellite temps over 2010 — Global, NH, SH, Tropics --(these are not the official numbers as there is some processing required but close enough).

The whole debate on global warming is misguided, since it focuses on statistical effects of the pathetically low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and tries to portray CO2 and higher world temps as bad.

Bob; I'm glad you linked to McIntyre's discussion of the «Bucket» case; this has always intriqued me because the AGW crew have been furious with the 40's dip in temp as it contradicts the effect of the linear increase in CO2 and its monotonic connotations for temp; to overcome the mid-century decline the global dimming hilarity was espoused; the Bucket case added a further dimension of hilarity to this because if the temps actually hadn't dropped as per the Bucket case then global dimming was rubbish; such is the illogic of the orthodoxy.

that is an interesting analogy in many ways, not least that an increase would be considered «good», as an increase in global mean temp might be «good».

Just think how much easier your argument would be now (correct though it is), if you and the rest of your tribe hadn't been pitching the surface temps as «global average temperature» for so long.

Your graphs helps my point (although not as much as it would if it actually showed global temps properly).

Because they have being declaring: Paleocene, Eocene, Crapocene — phony GLOBAL temp cycles = declared as official records, by the original scum.

Because they have being declaring: Paleocene, Eocene, Crapocene — phony GLOBAL temp cycles = what a scam, declared as official records, by the original scum.

Fine scale regional fit, as many outputs as measurable, global fitting on long time, with a complex non-monotonic temp curve.

The Pause, part II: To account for the failure of global temps to go up as they predicted, they point to natural variation.

As James Hadley pointed out here, a DICE model that assumes we'd only lose half our global GDP with an 18C temp increase; (4) discount rates are too high.

As such, I reject the logic of «global warming» has paused — although not the logic of «global mean (surface) temps has stagnated.

I am very bad at the find - the - pea - in - the - shell game, otherwise known as explaining where the AGW heat is going if the global atmospheric temps are pausing.

Writing «I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years... to hide the decline» makes Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who typed that in 1999, look as if he is pulling a fast one to conceal a trend toward global cooling.

Note: Excel used to calculate the 3 - year absolute temperature and CO2 level averages; also used to calculate the moving 36 - month and 360 - month per century acceleration / deceleration trends (Excel slope function) as depicted on chart; the absolute temps calculated using the HadCRUT4 month anomalies and NOAA's monthly global mean temperature estimates; and, the 3 - year average beginning value for CO2 was offset to a zero starting place.

As for the MWP, we don't know that global temps were «as high or higher» than today, but even if they were the fact that it would have been due to some «natural» factor (s) rather than CO2 doesn't alter our expectation that increased CO2 levels should have caused warming in recent decades and should do in the futurAs for the MWP, we don't know that global temps were «as high or higher» than today, but even if they were the fact that it would have been due to some «natural» factor (s) rather than CO2 doesn't alter our expectation that increased CO2 levels should have caused warming in recent decades and should do in the futuras high or higher» than today, but even if they were the fact that it would have been due to some «natural» factor (s) rather than CO2 doesn't alter our expectation that increased CO2 levels should have caused warming in recent decades and should do in the future.

The effect seems to be continuous as the tropics and global temp charts shown above seem to continuously follow behind the ENSO.

lolwot!!!! if one believes that CO2 increases the GLOBAL temp; that's NOT a» Skeptic» Same as: If one believes in Santa, can not be referred as» mature person»» Believer» that: CO2 has anything to do with the overall global temp; calling him» Skeptic&rGLOBAL temp; that's NOT a» Skeptic» Same as: If one believes in Santa, can not be referred as» mature person»» Believer» that: CO2 has anything to do with the overall global temp; calling him» Skeptic&rglobal temp; calling him» Skeptic».

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....

Regardless of whether 2010 goes down in the record books as the wamest or 2nd warmest on instrument record, should we get a decent sized El Nino closer to the peak of solar max 24, new record high global temps should easily be set.

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.»

I'm alternately told by «skeptics» (1) it's regional impact that's important, (2) it's global data that's more important, (3) there is no such thing as «global temperatures,» (4) «skeptics» are not monolithic, (5) «skeptics» don't doubt that global temperatures are warming (and that it is to some extent influenced by AC02), or alternately «we dismiss non-Global data), (6) all methodologyies used to determine global temps are unreliable, (7) global warming has stopped, (8) we're experiencing global cooling, (9) what matters is long term trends, (10) short - term trends are significant, (11) what's happening in Arctic isn't important (because it's regional), (12) what's happening in the Antarctic is important (despite it being regional).

Latimer, the accurate Plateau - forecast you can find in the (German) Amazon.de: ISBN 978 -3-86805-604-4, which shows that global temps continue for 3 - 4 decades as Plateau and will decline thereafter.

Atmospheric surface temps have been used and marketed since the end of the last global cooling phase from 1945 - 1976 and explicitly through the 1990 ′ s as the definitive measure of «theorised» human - induced (anthropogenic) global warming.

I am particularly impressed with the suggestion this morning that 1998 temps were an outlier caused by a massive El Nino and that it was therefore unreasonable look at global temps with ’98 as the starting point.