Sentences with phrase «known temperature records»

I know the temperature record is of great interest to WUWT, so hopefully some of you can answer these questions.

In the reconstruction period (the only part that is «new science» here, after all we know the temperature record already), the patterns are not replicated.

Not exact matches

With the kinds of low temperatures that have been recorded lately in many parts of the country, it's critical to know how many layers little kids need to wear when they go outside.

There can be no doubt that the planet is warming; 2016 was the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average.

Derham could not have known, but his hobby would one day mark the beginning of something monumental: the Central England temperature record, the earliest thermometer readings now included in the massive datasets that track global warming.

When Voyager 2 passed by Neptune's moon Triton in 1989, it recorded the lowest known temperature in our solar system: — 391 degrees F.

Subtracting known influences and comparing their results with satellite records of Earth's day length, they found that elevated temperatures in the pool during El Niño years correlated with days that were a few microseconds longer than in other years.

Another discusses the various methods for dealing with known problems and biases in the temperature record.

To reconstruct accurate climate records for the past and forecast climate changes for the future, modelers need to know just how passive trees really are when it comes to air temperature.

The research, published last June in the journal Science, concluded that an improved record of surface temperatures no longer shows evidence of a slowdown in global warming.

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).

As you well know, overall, it's been a warm start to winter across the U.S. Just this past week, record high temperatures were falling from the Great Lakes through the Mid-Atlantic and up into the Northeast.

There is no longer any evidence of a pause in warming through present in any of the land surface temperature records.

There were no all - time cold temperature records set or tied during the same period.

They tricked us a few weeks ago with some colder weather then the next thing you know we're breaking records and seeing temperatures in the mid 90's for several days.

The Salem, Oregon, area isn't known for its record - breaking low temperatures, but that doesn't mean your loved one won't need to don a pair of gloves this winter.

Queensland is known for its warm, sunny weather and Fraser Island has recorded average temperatures of 22 °C (71.6 F) in winter and 29 °C (82.4 F) in summer.

Unfortunately, the long - term surface records are the only comparisons we can make because there were no satellites in 1910, so we have no way of knowing what the Arctic troposphere temperatures were back then.

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).

Reading her orignal post complete with relevant links it goes no further than to say «Look inflections in the temperature record.

We know, from the fossil record, that temperature trends are not linear.

Possibly just being pedantic again, but view the words «Human Signal» as describing a «specific» / known quantity (poor choice of words) superimposed on top of the temperature record.

Now we know what temperature record you're looking at (Hadcrut, variance - unadjusted).

The new data set also shifts around the hottest years on record, so that the new temperature series, known as HadCRUT4, is more in line with other global records held by NASA and NOAA in the US.

The hockey team has perpetuated their hoax by not updating their tree ring series because they know that the proxy data will have a glaring absence of the temperature rise that is shown by the instrument record.

Do you know how many places in the historical record show an equal or longer period of time where CO2 is known to be decreasing while temperatures continue to rise?

The whole temperature record for the last half of the 20th century was a few trees, and now we know it's all wrong!

I remember that Phil Jones said that the Russians and the Japanese also have global temperature records that were a close match to the better known records.

When you take a record every day of hundreds of thermometers all around your home and compare them, will you know any more about the temperature where you live?

Climate scientists don't know where and when temperature and precipitation records will be broken, but they are confident that the next decade and especially century will have more records of all kinds broken than the last decade and century.

The first items again, is that it is from a single source, and we don't know how accurate the thermometers were at recording realistic temperatures.

In Re: Titus, (# 1, 2/22; @ 11:42 P)-- A very astute commenter who knows the minutia of British temperature records all the way back to Fahrenheit's 1720 instrument, has for years been blasting us, «worry - ers,» with his acumen.

I don't know how you can look at the satellite record since 1998 and not conclude that the temperature has fallen.

Incidentally, I know it has been repeated on a number of occasions, but I think it might help to remind people that climate models are not based off of surface temperature records.

We don't really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain).

-LSB-[I don't know how you can look at the satellite record since 1998 and not conclude that the temperature has fallen.

The fossil record has repeatedly shown that there is absolutely NO relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Now for climate change work, we don't care so much about the actual temperature, but do want to know about the trend, so it is possible to create an alternative algorithm that is free from the systemic biases caused by attempts to merge thousands of low grade temperature records together.

Now that that particular argument has been disposed of, no doubt there will be another, and another, and another — all distracting us from the central issue: why is GISS manipulating, adjusting and massaging the temperature record, while refusing to disclose the raw data?

When the IPCC claimed that the GCM models (with GHG forcing included) could replicate the observed changes in global average temperatures do you know if they were referring to a truly global measurement or were they just using the US temp record?

We know that UHI and other anthropogenic effects are influencing temperature records.

Revkin wrote Hansen: «given that quite a few folks (Gore and some environmentalists particularly) have often used the USA temp trends in arguments for action (string of record years), its hard for me to ignore the re-analysis of these annual temperatures...» Its hard to know exactly what Revkin is aiming to say; there is ambiguity.

Earlier this year, in a mostly interesting lecture about science policy in Australia early this year, Nurse took a cheap shot at Nigel Lawson, accusing him of cherrypicking two points in the temperature record of the past 20 years to show a standstill, «knowing» that the other data in the period did not support his point.

High - frequency associations (not shown here) remain strong throughout the whole record, but average density levels have continuously fallen while temperatures in recent decades have risen... As yet, the reason is not known, but analyses of time - dependent regional comparisons suggest that it is associated with a tendency towards loss of «spring» growth response (Briffa et al., 1 999b) and, at least for subarctic Siberia, it may be connected with changes in the timing of spring snowmelt (Vaganov et al., 1999).

In 2005, during the hottest average decade on record, 8 low - wind conditions known as «the doldrums» combined with very high ocean temperatures to cause massive coral bleaching in the Virgin Islands.9 This was followed by a particularly severe outbreak of at least five coral diseases in the Virgin Islands, resulting in a decline in coral cover of about 60 percent.9 There is some indication that higher ocean temperatures — between 86 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (30 to 35 degrees Celsius)-- promote optimal growth of several coral pathogens.9 Other research showed that elkhorn coral post-bleaching had larger disease lesions than unbleached specimens, suggesting that bleaching may increase the corals» susceptibility to disease.9, 10

We could lose the entire temperature record and still know that C02 causes warming.

We don't even have records (photographs, descriptions, etc.) of each the temperature stations themselves, how could we possibly know if UHI has been correctly accounted for?

If you've ever wondered why you're buried in snow but keep hearing about how we've experienced «officially, the second warmest year on record» (when we're not being told it could be the warmest year on record), know that «officially» relates to the pronouncements of officials, and «official temperature records» have been «systematically «adjusted» to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.»

And remember, this is not the result of all of the known problems with the ground based climate records... these three teams, all comprised of well - known climate scientists, are using the same temperature records, and they can't even agree on what the average temperature of the earth is.

It is interesting how using long national records that are known to be reliable - which arent that many - often gives different answers to the global temperatures dataset which I increasingly think is «manufactured» to suit various purposes.