Sentences with phrase «instrumental global record»

* it confirms that the instrumental temperature record shows an upward trend (with various reverses and advances) from the start of the CET instrumental record in 1659 making the 1880 start point for the instrumental global record used by GISS appear to be merely a staging post in the upwards trend, rather than the starting post.

Not exact matches

The increase in the early 20th century is well known from the instrumental record of global and hemispheric mean temperatures (which extends back into the mid 19th century).

Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model.

There is more to obervations than the global warming in the instrumental record.

The concatenation of modern and instrumental records [52] is based on an estimate that global temperature in the first decade of the 21st century (+0.8 °C relative to 1880 — 1920) exceeded the Holocene mean by 0.25 ± 0.25 °C.

She also was instrumental to the success of the June 2013 auction ($ 19,600,000), with a global record for an artwork by the artist Kazuo Shiraga, Chiretsusei Katsusemba ($ 1,650,000).

b) There is some other mechanism of producing global warming that has been active in the past, but occurs by a mechanism that is not included in current models, and which doesn't have anything to do with CO2, and this, rather than CO2, is responsible for the warming seen in the instrumental record (and whatever that mechanism is, it is temporary and will go away by itself Real Soon Now).

The increase in the early 20th century is well known from the instrumental record of global and hemispheric mean temperatures (which extends back into the mid 19th century).

Instead, there is Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 — 2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850), indicating a move towards a (correct) realisation that the relative warmth of individual years are harder to assess.

By integrating a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements with another database of temperature versus depth within boreholes and with the twentieth - century instrumental record of surface temperature, Huang et al. reconstruct the surface temperature history over the past 20,000 years.

So, couldn't you take the instrumental record for global mean temperature, subdivide it into chunks (say 10 or 20 years at a time), then analyze each chunk separately using a fourier transform?

We discussed this issue in our paper: The global instrumental record since 1850 contains only 2 and half cycles of this 65 - year cycle.

A global - scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean - air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present... is now available.

Over this period the recent instrumental records, mainly based on direct thermometer readings, has approximately global coverage.

Prior to that, when global cooling was the concern, there was no divergence between the instrumental record and proxy evidence.

The annual global mean temperature for every year since the TAR has been among the 10 warmest years since the beginning of the instrumental record.

The instrumental record before then is hideously insufficient in spatial coverage of the planet to establish a global average temperature.

I have written some three articles on the general unreliability of instrumental records and reiterate that I do NOT believe it is possible to accurately parse a local temperature to fractions of a degree, let alone a global one.

In fact if that doesn't hold true prior to the satellite era then you can kiss the instrumental record prior to 1950 goodbye because its coverage isn't anywhere near global and is almost completely absent for undeveloped countries, remote regions, and over the ocean.

However, Muller doesn't make this error - he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.

Figure 2 provides a comparison of them all, starting in AD 500 (the earliest date in Mann 2008's global reconstruction), with the northern hemisphere instrumental record shown for comparison.

I've taken the three Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann, Moberg, and Ljungqvist) plus Loehle's «global» reconstruction, and carefully matched each one to the same instrumental temperature record (CRUTEM Northern Hemisphere land temperatures).

There are more degrees of freedom in publication bias alone than the 30 - year averaged global temperature over the instrumental record.

2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century.

If this is accepted as a reasonable looking proxy for ocean heat content which matches the instrumental OHC record pretty well, then no «lag» is needed to explain the solar effect on OHC and thus global surface temperature.

The point being made is that, without regard for the accuracy or precision of the instrumental record, you can still replicate the 20th - century global warming signal using only a subset of the data.

As you still seem to be under the impression that CET was the only instrumental record people like Lamb had to work with, you might be interested in this first attempt in the 1780's to create a global record.

Just showing the differences of the historical record w / and w / o merging of «instrumental record» and the balloon and satellite record (as you have previously done, really puts the whole Global Warming issue in perspective, especially if you maintain the anomaly (suppressed) scaling the same.

He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling.

Although the regions largely coincide with the continents rather than climatological criteria, the annual mean temperature averaged over these regions explains 90 % of the global mean annual temperature variability in the instrumental record»

Your obsession with making global warming conform to a linear trend is noted, even if the instrumental record is better described by alternating warming and cooling stages with a general upward trend.

Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model.

The near - linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as: «Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation» «The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing&Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation» «The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing&global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation» «The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing&global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing&global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing»

It's not confusing: they're saying that greenhouse - gas - induced, anthropogenic global warming goes back to before the instrumental records began.

Let's be clear: the actual NOAA empirical evidence, from the global temperature climate instrumental records, does not support the hypothesis that long - term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels produce rapid accelerating, dangerous global temperature changes.

Publicly, of course, the Climategate conspirators had been saying that the last ten years were the warmest decade on the instrumental record — true, but not surprising given that there has been 300 years of global warming.

This time period is too short to signify a change in the warming trend, as climate trends are measured over periods of decades, not years.12, 29,30,31,32 Such decade - long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900 - 1910 and 1940 - 1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade - long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise.33 Nonetheless, satellite and ocean observations indicate that the Earth - atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.34

Jones, P.D. and Bradley, R.S., 1992: Global - scale temperature changes during the period of instrumental records.

There are now a greater number of climate simulations from AOGCMs for the period of the global surface instrumental record than were available for the TAR, including a greater variety of forcings in a greater variety of combinations.

The concatenation of modern and instrumental records [52] is based on an estimate that global temperature in the first decade of the 21st century (+0.8 °C relative to 1880 — 1920) exceeded the Holocene mean by 0.25 ± 0.25 °C.

Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records, Ka - Kit Tung1 and Jiansong Zhou, 12/2012; ``... anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.»

Hence skeptics are extremely adamant there was a very cold and global little ice age, but from the other side of their mouth they will rubbish all lines of evidence like tree ring reconstructions and the instrumental record that are needed to make such an adamant claim about the little ice age.

Long - Term Instrumental and Reconstructed Temperature Records Contradict Anthropogenic Global Warming Horst - Joachim Ludecke

It notes that despite the cooling effect of La Niña, most evident in the near - surface waters of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, 1999 was still one of the warmest years in the global historical instrumental record.

Were I you, if I had good cause to believe the instrumental record to be wholly unreliable, I'd adopt the agnostic position of not knowing what global trends were doing.

My idea is to take a simple sinusoidal model of a beat wave composed of 9 and 20 year cycles (the two main frequencies in the instrumental record of global temperature) and subject them to disturbances with a random variable having a standard deviation comparable to the standard deviation of monthly changes in the rate of change in global temperature.

Unless your eyes have global daily coverage I'd go with the instrumental record.

That CET appears to be a good — but not perfect - proxy of global temperatures can be seen in the paleo and instrumental record.

* As paleoclimate reconstructions are measured against global instrumental temperature records commencing 1880 they do not find any» hockey stick» effects seen in older temperature records

These graphics compare the 2014 temperature anomaly (black line) to the historical instrumental global temperature record.