Sentences with phrase «measure average global temperatures»

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».

Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5 - year running - average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near - perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R ^ 2 = 0.97 +).

Discover the three factors in an equation which matches the measured average global temperature trend 98 % 1895 - 2016.

The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5 - year running - average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near - perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R ^ 2 = 0.97 +).

The up - and - down trend of the measured average global temperature trajectory since it has been reasonably accurately measured worldwide is closely calculated using an emergent structures analysis.

Hunter, All that you say may be true but the combined effect of all of these factors is so small that, as is shown, an excellent correlation with the measured average global temperatures is obtained when they are ignored and the only factors considered are time - integral of sunspots and a temperature oscillation (the oscillation is probably from ocean turnover).

Two natural drivers have been identified that explain measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with R ^ 2 > 0.9 (95 % correlation) and credible values back to 1610.

One point to clarify, the 15C referred to at the end is a reference to the current measured average global temperature.

Not exact matches

«We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,» said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.

In scenarios in which the average global temperature rises less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, short - term measures to reduce SLCF had only a minor effect on the long - term rise in temperature.

In effect, the HadCrut4 and NOAA GlobalTemp global series simplistically assume temperature change in the Arctic and other missing areas matches on average that measured in the rest of the globe.

But I would really have preferred if they had written in Helvetica, 30, Bold that the uncertainty band is not on the actual, as measured in the field, global average temperature, but on their matematical model of it, and because of the steps that model contain, probably an order of magnitude too optimistic with respect to the actual temperature.

For a long time now climatologists have been tracking the global average air temperature as a measure of planetary climate variability and trends, even though this metric reflects just a tiny fraction of Earth's net energy or heat content.

Pay particular attention to the temperature scale on the left hand side — 1 cm is equivalent to 0.2 degrees centigrade — and think about what we are trying to measure — the global average temperature, all of it, oceans, atmosphere and continents.

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.

Mark, by «VERY GOOD» do you mean the reliability, variances and error bars of measuring average global mean temperatures and CO2 mixing ratios over the past 150 years is about as good as measuring your height over the past 30 years?

Secondly, unlike the global average surface temperature trend, which has a lag with respect to radiative forcing, there is no such lag when heat content is measured in Joules (see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf).

(PS we are considering the climate sensitivity to be in terms of changes in global - time average surface temperature per unit global - time average radiative forcing, though one could also define other sensitivities for other measures of climate).

I think it's a mistake to refer to changes in global average surface air temperatures as if they were definitive measures of the change to the climate system.

Warming as measured by increased global heat, (heat in greater than heat out) and warming measured as increased globally averaged temperatures are closely linked but are still different things.

Scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) gather data from a global network of some 800 climate - monitoring stations to measure changes in the earth's average temperature.

No one has yet managed to measure the average global surface temperature — once again incapable of rigorous definition — with any precision.

Dana, I think you are pushing in the right direction with this; heat content is a much more direct measure of the underlying changes to the climate system than average air temperatures and climate science communicators should make heat content their first response to the suggestion that global warming is something that waxes and (allegedly, recently) wanes.

to be consistent, either we should have 100 points measuring the temperature on a specific hour of the day on mountains and in the ocean, and no average world temperature, or we should do the same with CO2, measure high for the day, low for the day, average, and make a global average from many regions, and then define an anomaly on the same interval as the temperature anomaly in order to be consistent.

The ACO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is too small to be measured; ACO2 acidification is too small to be measured; and the ACO2 contribution to the global average surface temperature is too small to be measured.

Despite the complexity of global food supply, here we show that simple measures of growing season temperatures and precipitation — spatial averages based on the locations of each crop — explain ~ 30 % or more of year - to - year variations in global average yields for the world's six most widely grown crops.

Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures... [and] David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures... [and] David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was global air temperatures... [and] David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong.

• The measured «average global temperature» isn't necessarily representative of the overall thermal energy in the system, because temperatures can change in regions not part of the measurement system.

A number is pulled out of the air with no justification (that stuff averages out over 15 years), and the supporting evidence of this is that we can measure global temperature averages.

Assume the accuracy of each thermometer is + / - 5 % (this is climate science, we can assume lots of things), you also have to factor in at least the time of day, day of the year, and depth of the water measured (we are after all talking about global average temperatures).

You are spending a lot of time rationalizing WHY there was a «standstill» in global warming (as measured by the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly»).

What they're supposed to predict is the shape of the attractor, or more precisely a very simplistic measure of the shape of the «basin of attraction» in terms of some artifact called «global average temperature».

A good determination of the rise in global land temperatures can't be done with just a few stations: it takes hundreds — or better, thousands — of stations to detect and measure the average warming.

Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green).

Global average surface temperature, measured by satellites and direct observations, is considered a key indicator of climate change.

If the actual average global temperature can not be measured how do you know know that it is cooling?

You say both that actual average global temperature can not be measured and that you know what it is.

Global average temperatures can not be measured with a degree of accuracy to ascertain whether it is warming or cooling., So depending how you measure it, it will show either a warming, a cooling or a static temperature.

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.

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.

Prior to 1979 when satellites began to measure lower troposphere temperature all over the globe we had no measure of global average temperature (GAT) only guesstimates based on fewer and fewer measurements using instruments not designed to measure decadal trends so small as a few milliKelvins per decade.

However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current «pause» (or «standstill») in the warming of the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (used by IPCC to measure «global warming»), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels.

Thirty one years of satellite meaurement of OLR shows an exact match to the absolute average global temperature as measured by satellites (UAH and RSS MSU).

The data presented to the US Senate by Christy shows a clear flattening off of the average global temperature as measured by satellites after 2000.

GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980.

The very notion of a «global average temperature» as a measure of warming is extremely flawed.

I have my doubts that scientists can measure global average temperature to within tenths of a degree at any given time.

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979).

Considering that global average temperatures are still rising by a variety of measures, just more slowly, and as the last time we had a coldest year on record was 1909, this is quite a leap of faith.

The «average global temperature» violates the property of a measure that is called «additivity.»