Sentences with phrase «local average temperatures»

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.

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.

By comparing different countries, compute the «sensitivities» dX / dT and dX / dC where T is the local average temperature and C the fossil fuel consumption.

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.

The analysis suggests the samples formed when average local temperatures were about -0.5 °C.

(Global average temperature fell by about a degree during the Little Ice Age, although scientists have struggled to quantify local cooling.)

Determining the rate of temperature change is more difficult at a local and regional level because researchers have less data to average, so trends are not as evident because of «statistical noise.»

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.

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.

From November to March is the peak trekking season but all year round clement weather with temperatures averaging from 18 — 21 degrees centigrade makes trekking these highlands an extremely attractive pastime and locals claim never to have seen snow.

With average summer temperatures of 21C - 28C, and average winter temperatures of 15C - 21C, both locals and visitors are able to enjoy plenty of outdoor activities including the many festivals throughout the year.

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.

However, those people died from the local temperature, and not the average global temperature.

The records of annual average global temperature represent the extreme but also carry weight because all other local information has been lost.

If you wanted the global / regional / local averages to somehow provide a measure of average human misery due to increasing temperatures, then population - weighted or un-weighted averages will probably capture that, since the density of met stations is a reasonable proxy for population density.

the problem is that this definition implicitly assumes that the global, time average surface temperature is a definite single valued function of the radiative average forcing, which is far from being true since there are considerable horizontal heat transfer modifying the latitudinal repartition of temperature: the local vertical radiative budget is NOT verified.

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.)

Now the global / regional / local «average» temperatures / precipitation / etc.

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.

The only significant atmospheric warming is where the local average air temperature is LOWER than 280K.

But it is one heck of a leap to go from those general propositions to assert that you can measure local average annual temperature — and temperature alone — to within less than a degree by doing the same.

The time of crossing of each temperature threshold depends (on average) on whether the local area is warmer or cooler than usual.

2 Local Conditions How would you describe your climate, or the average year after year conditions of temperature and precipitation where you live?

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.

Oerlemans and Fortuin (1992) derived an empirical relationship between the mass balance sensitivity of a glacier to temperature change and the local average precipitation, which is the principal factor determining its mass turnover rate.

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.

But global isn't local, and we don't physically experience the «global average temperature.»

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.

So we are supposed to think these trees are responding to some sort of global average temperature and not to local temperatures?

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.

The link between a regional climate variable such as mean temperature and the average behaviour of a sample of trees is one step more statistical than the link between local weather and an individual tree.

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea - level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea - level change is what matters.

Well then it would be like the passive solar hot water system that does not have a defined lapse rate but does convect under a varying heat source and averages a greater temperature than the ambient local temperature (which has the GHG effect included already).

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.

It is basically a measure of the expected deviation of all the runs used against the reconstructed average: Take a running «window» average over a «straight» portion of the temperature reference, so that the local deviation against the local mean is calculated (for our temperature record one could simplify by detrending the record from 1940's to 2000's and calculating a deviation).

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 Hadley Centre have reprocessed this data into a 5 x 5 degree grid, calculated a similar grid of local seasonal variations and produced a gridded database of monthly average temperature deviations from this seasonal climatology.

Averaging local temperatures is likely as useless as referring to the global temperature.

Temperatures are given as deviations from local seasonal averages, calculated for the period 1950 - 79.