Sentences with phrase «in local average temperatures»

Not exact matches

with local weather patterns, but the consistent rise in average global temperatures.

Cuomo joined California in signing on to the Under 2 MOU, an agreement between states, provinces and local governments across the world to cap the rising average temperature by the year 2100.

Ice core data from the poles clearly show dramatic swings in average global temperatures, but researchers still don't know how local ecosystems reacted to the change.

By the end of this century, according to the new research, some «megapolitan» regions of the U.S. could see local average temperatures rise by as much as 3 degrees Celsius, in addition to whatever global warming may do.

A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land - based temperature record are negligible (0.006 ºC per decade) as far as hemispheric - and continental - scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are avoided or accounted for in the data sets used.

So, these — real estate is a very local industry so different part — that's like when Canadian real estate stats come out, CREA, Canadian Real Estate Association, they — when they say oh, the average price of a home in Canada is up 5 % or down 5 %, I think that's always — in my head I always think that's about as relevant as what is the average temperature in Canada right now.

► The local climate is tropical, with temperatures averaging from 30 Celsius in December to 22 Celsius in June; there is a warm, dry winter from May to November and a hot and humid summer from November to May.

For example since the temperature anomalies used in the analyses are local seasonal averages, then an increase in the value of a temperature anomaly might arise simply from a shift in the local temperature distribution.

Human induced trend has two components, namely (a) greenhouse effect [this includes global and local / regional component] and (b) non-greenhouse effect [local / regional component]-- according to IPCC (a) is more than half of global average temperature anomaly wherein it also includes component of volcanic activities, etc that comes under greenhouse effect; and (b) contribution is less than half — ecological changes component but this is biased positive side by urban - heat - island effect component as the met network are concentrated in urban areas and rural - cold - island effect is biased negative side as the met stations are sparsely distributed though rural area is more than double to urban area.

If it is correct that you can only attribute changes in mean temperature to heat waves it ought to be the change in the local mean, for example the anomaly in a particular region for a particular month averaged over, say, the last decade.

So the intensity of radiation (at some frequency and polarization) changes over distance, such that, in the direction the intensity is going, it is always approaching the blackbody value (Planck function) for the local temperature; it approaches this quickly if the absorption cross section density is high; if the cross section density is very high and the temperature doesn't vary much over distance, the intensity may be nearly equal to the Planck function for that location; otherwise its value is a weighted average of the Planck function of local temperature extending back over the path in the direction it came from.

There can / will be local and regional, latitudinal, diurnal and seasonal, and internal variability - related deviations to the pattern (in temperature and in optical properties (LW and SW) from components (water vapor, clouds, snow, etc.) that vary with weather and climate), but the global average effect is at least somewhat constrained by the global average vertical distribution of solar heating, which requires the equilibrium net convective + LW fluxes, in the global average, to be sizable and upward at all levels from the surface to TOA, thus tending to limit the extent and magnitude of inversions.)

Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record - breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long - term warming.

You really can not logically average temperatures across the globe with such poor distribution of stations and such variability of accuracy in local measurement capability.

People are affected far more by local weather extremes than by any change in global average temperature.

That's the one that has been shown to be highly misleading as it defines extremes in relative to the local average temperatures of period 1951 - 1980.

As someone who is not well versed in the methods discussed above by Paul Dunmore, HAS, Nebuchadnezzar, and Pekka, I would like input from any of them on what they presume might be the value of estimating global temperature changes in a manner not involving the grids or other forms of local averaging.

The point is that comparing local averages of past with local extremes of the present selects strongly cases where the local temperatures have risen more than the average of all locations even in absence of extremes.

Once such an IPCC exposition of the assumptions, complications and uncertainties of climate models was constructed and made public, it would immediately have to lead, in my view, to more questions from the informed public such as what does calculating a mean global temperature change mean to individuals who have to deal with local conditions and not a global average and what are the assumptions, complications and uncertainties that the models contain when it comes to determining the detrimental and beneficial effects of a «global» warming in localized areas of the globe.

I am interested in global average temperatures only in so far as it gives a feel for the severity of the impact at the local level.

That 150 C range of temperatures also covers a wide variety of terrains, and ground cover, even deep oceans, and the thermal energy flows in each of those different environments relate to the local temperature in totally different ways, so there is no relationship between the «average» global temperature (even if it was possible to measure such a number) and the energy balance of the planet.

Like in school when the class average mark goes up 10 marks does not mean that the whole class got exactly 10 marks more, the actual local temperature rise will depend on your location, wind patterns etc..

Anyway with El Niño fading away and possibly a new El Nina with other natural cooing factors coming in to play there is a good chance of another decade or more of «Pausing» or cooling in global temperatures which is itself a stupid concept as it cools and heats in different places of the planet dependent on the local climate conditions an average is meaningless — you really need to dream up some more dire alarmist nonsense to keep your show on the road.

As in the allegory, a «global average» temperature obscures critical dynamics that are best understood by examining local causes of «regional climate» change.

Rabbit Flat and Learmonth are located in the hot climates of the Northern Territory and WA's north - west coast, and are used as a variable in this analysis to examine the influence of local climates at new weather locations on Australia's averaged temperature trends.

The glacier remained relatively stable from 1960 to 2002, coinciding with cooler - than - average local summer temperatures through the mid - 1990s.3 After local summer temperatures began to rise, around 1995, Kangerdlugssuaq's speed more than doubled, from an average of 49 feet (15 meters) per day in 2001 to 131 feet (40 meters) per day in 2005.6

Local independent weather monitoring stations logged an average of 6 degrees drop in air temperature lagging peak eclipse point by approximately 30 minutes.

BTW, on both mathematical and physical grounds, there is even less basis for expecting truly abrupt changes in global average temperatures than in local ones.

One fundamental problem in using any single location is that there's much more noise in local temperatures than in global or wide area averages.

After choosing these sites, I used the option in NOWData's local search tool to search the average annual temperatures recorded in each city for each year from 1895 through 2016.

Although UHI and instrument relocations can have a significant local effect, they alone can not account for the overall nationwide picture of an increase in annual average temperature witnessed by all but one site since 2010.

It is stunning how many people think they're climate experts and are perfectly ignorant of the difference between changes in global average temperature and local temperature variation.

Any variability in oceanic circulation could have strong effects on local, and hence average temperature, even with a fixed energy budget.

«Global excursions», that is excursions in «global average temperature» tend to be small compared to local events.

Has there ever been a caveat about the lack of any physical meaning in local monthly, or globally, averaged temperatures?

IMHO the emphasis on global average surface temperature in recent times, while understandable (if it really does rise 3 + K this century, the emphasis will have been justified) distracts from other issues that are just as important for local climate (which is what we all actually experience).