Sentences with phrase «like global average temperature»

Not exact matches

The global temperature average has increased by 1.4 degrees F, which may not seem like a lot, but the effects of the increase are being seen and felt globally.

We have much better — and more conclusive — evidence for climate change from more boring sources like global temperature averages, or the extent of global sea ice, or thousands of years» worth of C02 levels stored frozen in ice cores.

As for this research team's Holy Grail — predicting the change in average global temperature — it begins to look more and more like an unreachable, even meaningless, goal.

But the U.K. Met Office (national weather service), the U.S.'s National Center for Atmospheric Research and other partners around the globe aim to change that in the future by developing regular assessments — much like present evaluations of global average temperatures along with building from the U.K. flooding risk modeling efforts — to determine how much a given season's extreme weather could be attributed to human influence.

Threats — ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods — are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Just like the stock market, monthly global average temperature numbers go up and down with a certain random variance.

The study, described in an article today in The Times, finds that poorly understood variations in water vapor concentrations in the stratosphere were probably responsible for a substantial wedge of the powerful warming trend in the 1990s and a substantial portion of «the flattening of global average temperatures since 2000 ″ (to anyone who hates talk of plateaus and the like, those are the authors» words, not mine).

It is likely that the change in temperature due to the change in concentration was more like when CO2 reached 280ppm from 140ppm the global average temperature would have rose roughly 2 Deg.

The researchers used a climate - vegetation model that showed (like several similar studies) a clear increase in Amazonian drought following a global average temperature rise — leading to a large - scale die - back of rainforest, switching to grassland and savanna climate suitability.

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

Combined with the predictive equation which has matched 97 % with measured average global temperatures since before 1900 this all looks like a steepening downtrend of reported average global temperatures within a few months and accelerated increase of «months without warming».

Such reports could be on topics like climate change's influence on hurricanes, the so - called «pause» in the increase of average global surface temperatures or the climate implications of natural gas.

This sounds like another area - averaged statistical boondoggle, like global temperature anomaly.

Also in my opinion, averaged global temperature has very little meaning, but such as it is, I would like to see the same methodology applied to all prominent variables and not start comparing temperatures globally with CO2 locally, as is happening now.

Although short term trends can be misleading, like the 22 year run up from 1976 to 1998, the dramatic drop of global average temperature in 2008 may be indicative of a change in character of the climate.

Scientists had tried to look into the future by extrapolating the visible trends and forces along a single line, calculating a most likely outcome within a range of possibilities: «global average temperature will rise three degrees plus or minus 50 %» or the like.

But although the increasingly sophisticated models had come to a rough agreement on global features like the rise of average temperature, they differed in the regional details.

The most basic is that there are more real - world observations, including global emissions of CO2 and aerosols and readings at temperature stations and SST buoys, leading to new values for stats like globally averaged temperature anomaly, and the like.

Sort of like what's going with the global average temperature — no change — for 17 years and counting.

To mathematicians and physicists like Tomas and me, irregular wobbles in the climate of different regions and the global average temperature are exactly what we would expect to see.

The observation is valid without advert to a meaningless concept like «average global temperature.»

We talk about temperatures in high latitude areas, like the Arctic, because, as a general rule, high latitude areas are much more sensitive to human stress than the global average.

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.

To be sure, there is a lot of complexity in the way the change in average global temperature will play out regionally, or in the occurrence of phenomena like hurricanes or forest fires.

The analysis concludes that even a less ambitious climate goal, like a 3 °C rise in average global temperature or more, which would pose significantly greater risks for our society and economy, would still imply significant constraints on our use of fossil fuel reserves between now and 2050.

Besides I strongly oppose (like R.Pielke and many others) the idea that the «global time average of the surface temperature» has any physical meaning or is a valid metrics to measure the «climate» and I can't see the beginning of a valid reason why it should correlate to any relevant dynamical parameter.

Current computer models can faithfully simulate many of the important aspects of the global climate system, such as changes in global average temperature over many decades; the march of the seasons on large spatial scales; and how the climate responds to large - scale forcing, like a large volcanic eruption.

Re: global average temperatures, I think there's a lot of ongoing disagreement; like you say, the science is never settled.

Were the increase in average global temperatures held below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), then drastic climate change and long - term irreversible damage — like the melting of Greenland's glaciers — could still be avoided.

2) CAGW movement type models never reconstruct any lengthy past history accurately without creative and unique adjustment of aerosol values used as a fudge factor; that is why models of widely varying sensitivities supposedly all accurately reconstruct the past (different made - up assumed historical values used for each) but fail in future prediction, like they didn't predict how global average temperatures have been flat to declining over the past 15 years.

Well, apart from the global average temperature rising... It is not often you see such pure flat - earthist denial, even on anti-scientific denialist blogs like this.

What does Earth look like with average temperature of 6 C.» Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5 ° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene.average temperature of 6 C.» Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5 ° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene.Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5 ° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene.»

The role of ENSO in the coming year will certainly make a dent in the average global temperature — like it always does, either up or down.

Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were higher than average, so it looks like the world hasn't gotten much warmer since then, and talk about the global warming «pause.»

Gosh, the subsequent 342 consecutive months with a global temperature above the 20th century average sure make James Hansen's 1988 testimony look like foresighted genius!

OWASLT = Sum (Temp x Mass x Heat Capacity) / Sum (Mass x Heat Capacity), and looking at all pieces of mass components in the atmosphere + mass in the ocean (say down to 2000m or whatever depth would appropriate with respect to available global data & that should rightfully be included for an all inclusive weighted average temperature like this).

Global temperatures like 2015 will by normal by 2030, and Australia's record - breaking 2013 summer will likely be an average summer by 2035.

It says «average global temperatures could rise» dramatically, and that these videos demonstrate «potential scenarios... of what life could be like on a warmer planet» (all italics added).

It looks like some sort of hybrid between AR4 projections for tropical sea temperature increase and global average surface temperature rise.

For example, one year there was a difference of 0.4 °C between their global annual averages, which doesn't sound like much, but consider this against the claim that a 0.7 °C increase in temperature over the last approximately 130 years.

A #thony, I like your idea, but I gather the 50 stations would not be to determine the average global temperature, but the trend of the global temperature.

to the mark one eyeball global average temperature looks like a fractal, which suggests that average and variance will change as the scale increases.

Tack on, without the large and growing number of self - reinforcing feedback loops we've triggered recently, the 5 C rise in global - average temperature 55 million years ago during a span of 13 years, and it looks like trouble ahead for the wise ape.»

The AMO, for example, looks like it has an oscillation with a period of about 65 years and appears to be correlated to global average temperature.

Natural climate patterns like El Niño or La Niña can make the average global temperature fluctuate from year to year; that's why the lines on a global temperature graph zigzag.

And the more they talk about it, the more clear it becomes that their modeled trends are nothing like global, average or temperature.

^ ^ ^ ^ data showing 1.0 C / decade rate of decline in lower troposphere temperature since 2010 — I'm not making it up — global average temperature has been dropping like a stone since 2010 — in fact that rate of decline is itself alarming if it continues for long — it had better be a freak happenstance of back - to - back to La Ninas because a repeat of the Little Ice Age will have a far higher toll in absolute number of lives lost compared to the last one.

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75 % chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long - term average; he now believes we are «on track for something like four ``.

To me it looks like this shift will be the «team's» new tactic to keep the notion of global warming alive, especially if the pause in warming (or even slight cooling) of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature» lasts another few decades.