Sentences with phrase «mean surface temperature which»

This is in contrast to externally forced variability in global mean surface temperature which arises due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, aerosols, solar irradiance, ect.

You could argue to use 288 K as a global mean surface temperature which gives about 6.5 percent, or colder temperatures still, reflecting atmospheric temperatures where the RH remains fixed.

Not exact matches

Calculations indicate that in several ways it is quite an Earth - like planet: its radius is 1.2 to 2.5 times that of Earth; its mass is 3.1 to 4.3 times greater; and, crucially, its orbit lies within its star's «Goldilocks zone», which means its surface temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water - and therefore potentially life - to exist on its surface.

First, sea - surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have been higher than normal in the past couple of months, due to global warming, which means the air that flowed north would have been warmer to start with.

Global mean temperatures averaged over land and ocean surfaces, from three different estimates, each of which has been independently adjusted for various homogeneity issues, are consistent within uncertainty estimates over the period 1901 to 2005 and show similar rates of increase in recent decades.

One common measure of climate sensitivity is the amount by which global mean surface temperature would change once the system has settled into a new equilibrium following a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration.

First, a graph showing the annual mean anomalies from the CMIP3 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISTEMP products (it really doesn't matter which).

[T] he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world's leading authority on climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.»

He then uses what information is available to quantify (in Watts per square meter) what radiative terms drive that temperature change (for the LGM this is primarily increased surface albedo from more ice / snow cover, and also changes in greenhouse gases... the former is treated as a forcing, not a feedback; also, the orbital variations which technically drive the process are rather small in the global mean).

The diagnostics, which are used to compare model - simulated and observed changes, are often simple temperature indices such as the global mean surface temperature and ocean mean warming (Knutti et al., 2002, 2003) or the differential warming between the SH and NH (together with the global mean; Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001).

The close - in orbit around the cool star implies a mean surface temperature of between 0 and 40 degrees C - a range over which water would be liquid - and places the planet in the red dwarf's habitable zone.

The state of the previous facilities, which were over 15 years old, meant that the surface became extremely dangerous after sustained rainfall thanks to its poor drainage, and when temperatures dropped below freezing, ice patches appeared.

In the same paper in which he made his often - quoted «prediction» that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 would lead to an increase of 10 °C in surface mean temperature, F. Möller makes an almost never quoted disclaimer to the effect that a 1 percent increase in general cloudiness in the same model would completely mask this effect.

When differences in scaling between previous studies are accounted for, the various current and previous estimates of NH mean surface temperature are largely consistent within uncertainties, despite the differences in methodology and mix of proxy data back to approximately A.D. 1000... Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH.

So, it follows on phtysical grounds that any temperature change at the surface gets amplified aloft which means that the variability in temperature (solely the «dry» energy term) is larger aloft than at the surface.

Large variability reduces the number of new records — which is why the satellite series of global mean temperature have fewer expected records than the surface data, despite showing practically the same global warming trend: they have more short - term variability.

One common measure of climate sensitivity is the amount by which global mean surface temperature would change once the system has settled into a new equilibrium following a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration.

This means that the water vapour greenhouse effect feedback depends on the surface specific heat, latitude and altitude; all of which affect temperature.

This is the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of / / www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists.

The energy flow diagrams of Trenberth et al and Stephens et al show 3 mechanisms by which a warming Earth surface can warm the troposphere and restore radiative balance: it is not reasonable to assert a priori that two of them can't matter in calculating the global mean temperature after a doubling of CO2 concentration, when even a little study shows that all of them will be affected.

You could start with the National Research Council report, which found «with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries».

This February's sea surface temperatures were 1.46 degrees above average, which means the past nine months have been the nine highest monthly global ocean temperature departures on record.

Hi Marcel, I showed in 2005 here this important jump in temperatures measured at our national Luxembourg Findel weatherstation in a graph which gives mean anuual surface temp.

By comparing modelled and observed changes in such indices, which include the global mean surface temperature, the land - ocean temperature contrast, the temperature contrast between the NH and SH, the mean magnitude of the annual cycle in temperature over land and the mean meridional temperature gradient in the NH mid-latitudes, Braganza et al. (2004) estimate that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability.

An ominous sign considering that El Nino is the hot phase of atmospheric and surface temperature variability — which may mean that the next El Nino will drive a global high temperature departure even more extreme than 2014's record setting value.

The improved simulation of ENSO amplitude is mainly due to the reasonable representation of the thermocline and thermodynamic feedbacks: On the one hand, the deeper mean thermocline results in a weakened thermocline response to the zonal wind stress anomaly, and the looser vertical stratification of mean temperature leads to a weakened response of anomalous subsurface temperature to anomalous thermocline depth, both of which cause the reduced thermocline feedback in g2; on the other hand, the alleviated cold bias of mean sea surface temperature leads to more reasonable thermodynamic feedback in g2.

The air temperature in the troposphere is governed by the surface, so it isn't going to warm first anyway unless you do things like insulate it from the ground which means it is not physically the troposphere anymore.

Other experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific flipped from «warm mode», in which it had been locked for the previous 40 years, to «cold mode», meaning surface water temperatures fell.

Delegates debated at length to find the clearest language possible to explain that a claimed «15 - year hiatus» is based on a single variable (global mean surface temperature), too short a period of observation for climatic significance, and sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15 - year period is calculated.

Pekka — a period that is dominated by either La Nina or ENSO neutral that was leaning La Nina, which means energy loss from the oceans is dampened and the surface air temperature consequently dampened.

Peter Cox is the originator / author of the Triffid dynamic global vegetation model which was used to predict dieback of the Amazonian rain forest by 2050 and as a consequence a strong positive climate - carbon cycle feedback (i.e., an acceleration of global warming) with a resultant increase in global mean surface temperature by 8 deg.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

McCusker et al. (2012) performed an experiment in which global - mean surface temperature was held constant by increasing CO2 while simultaneously increasing sulfate aerosol... to compensate.

Since then there are a number of papers published on why the warming was statistically insignificant including a recent one by Richardson et al. 2016 which tries to explain that the models were projecting a global tas (temperature air surface) but the actual observations are a combination of tas (land) and SST oceans, meaning projected warming shouldn't be as much as projected.

''... the world today is on the verge of a level of global warming for which the equilibrium surface air temperature response on the ice sheets will exceed the global mean temperature increase by much more than a factor of two.»

Last year he said the 5 - year mean was weak evidence of a slowdown of global warming, by which he means the surface air temperature, which should be clear to anybody who reads Hansen.

A regression - based forecast for September ice extent around Svalbard (an area extending from 72 — 85N and 0 — 40E), which uses May sea surface temperatures, the March index of the Arctic Oscillation, and April ice conditions as predictors, yielded a mean ice extent in September 2010 of 255,788 square kilometers around Svalbard.

which would mean either increases or decreases in surface temperature, which makes Tallbloke's and others» critique that Dressler ignores the reflective effect of clouds on surface temperature glaringly obvious.

Sorry Mike, but as I pointed out above, you're ignoring the fast - equilibrium of Henry's law, which sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for how much CO2 resides in the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the current mean surface temperature of 15C.

Then, especially when there is excessive cloud cover over the oceans, the Sun's energy absorbed above the clouds can actually make its way down to the ocean surface (and below) warming the oceans by non-radiative processes, not by direct solar radiation which mostly passes through the thin surface layer and could barely raise the mean temperature of an asphalt paved Earth above -35 C.

Then try 1365/4 for the flux and emissivity of 0.88 (which is closer to that of rock and soil) and you get 287.6 K which is very close to the assumed mean surface temperature and thus obviates any need for that «33 degree of warming» In fact the 0.88 should be even lower and that gives higher temperatures above 290K.

So it's all gases at greatest density will be doing the same thing around the planet at the same time (*) and as these change with differences in density in the play between gravity and pressure and kinetic and potential from greatest near the surface to more rarified, less dense and absent any kinetic to write home about the higher one goes, then, energy conservation intact, the hotter will rise and cool because losing kinetic energy means losing temperature, thus cooling they which began with the closest in density and kinetic energy as a sort of band of brothers near the surface will rise and cool at the same time whereupon they'll all come down together colder but wiser that great heights don't make for more comfort and giving up their heat will sink displacing the hotter now in their place when they first went travelling.

When you start at that height (which is around 6 — 8 km in the atmosphere) and work back down to the ground, the lapse rate means that the surface has a higher temperature than the non-greenhouse temperature of 255 K.

What is it that makes it hard for yourself to understand that the adiabatic lapse rate determines how much warmer the surface is than the mean temperature of the Earth - plus - atmosphere system, which is not particularly close to 255K by the way, but would be found somewhere in the troposphere, stratosphere or mesosphere.

This means that if you are younger than 38 years old, you've never experienced a year in which the global average surface temperature was below average.

The fit of a trend line to the time series of global - mean surface temperature (e.g., Figure 2.5) indicates a warming between 0.25 to 0.4 °C for this 20 - year period, or approximately 0.1 to 0.2 °C per decade, 6 depending upon which of the existing data sets is used to represent the surface temperatures, and exactly how the fitting is done.

Start with earth which uniform temperature of 3 C. Meaning entire surface is 3 C [no ice].

Therefore, if you work from the layer at which the radiation escapes into space (about 6 km) down to the ground, the negative lapse rate means that surface temperature has to be higher than the non-GHG temperature.

The figure below shows the change in precipitation and evaporation (which have to balance globally) against the global mean surface temperature change.

And even if they corrected their methods; which they can't do, because it would take all the money on the planet to buy enough thermometers; it is all for naught, since there is no physical cause and effect connection between a local surface or near surface Temperature measurement, and the energy flows that are occurring at that location at that time; so mean global temperature tells us nothing about whether the earth is gaining or losing toTemperature measurement, and the energy flows that are occurring at that location at that time; so mean global temperature tells us nothing about whether the earth is gaining or losing totemperature tells us nothing about whether the earth is gaining or losing total energy.