Sentences with phrase «not average global surface temperatures»

Not exact matches

(1) The warm sea surface temperatures are not just some short - term anomaly but are part of a long - term observed warming trend, in which ocean temperatures off the US east coast are warming faster than global average temperatures.

Jacob (and many, many others) seem to think that if model A, when run from 1900 to present, predicts the relatively flat, global average surface temperature record over the past decade, is a better match to reality than model B which does not.

Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.&Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.&global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.»

It simply is inconsistent and therefore is not the controlling factor in global average surface temperature.

Global average surface temperatures are not expected to change significantly although temperatures at higher latitudes may be expected to decrease to a modest extent because of a reduction in the efficiency of meridional heat transport (offsetting the additional warming anticipated for this environment caused by the build - up of greenhouse gases).

Correcting this failure is, to my mind, about quantifying the climate impacts» damages in a scale which plainly does not relate geometrically to average global surface air temperature.

Nonetheless, there is a tendency for similar equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS, especially using a Charney ECS defined as equilibrium global time average surface temperature change per unit tropopause - level forcing with stratospheric adjustment, for different types of forcings (CO2, CH4, solar) if the forcings are not too idiosyncratic.

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.

(and not allowing surface temperature variation to increase so much that the average temperature drops significantly relative to global average OLR)

So, I'm beginning to think that the response of global average surface temperature to solar variations for the 11 - yr solar cycle is * not * amplified (by feedbacks).

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.

Please note that I don't rule anything out («The terms global temperature and regional temperature will be used here to refer to some kind of averaged surface temperature for the globe or for a region.

Present estimates are that limiting the increase in global average surface temperature to no more than 2 — 2.5 °C above its 1750 value of approximately 15 °C will be required to avoid the most catastrophic, but certainly not all, consequences of climate change.

Just think how much easier your argument would be now (correct though it is), if you and the rest of your tribe hadn't been pitching the surface temps as «global average temperature» for so long.

Should the veracity of the GH theory not have to answer to these far more detailed predictions then to a simple estimation of increased surface temperature, and using whichever of the various means of arriving at a global average best matches that one parameter?

It compiles a diverse set of sea surface (not deep water) temperature proxies to estimate a spatially - weighted global average temperature anomaly.

When he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibility.

I don't trust proxies and instrument records all that much before the satellite era for providing reasonably precise global average surface temperature.

The solar cycle can not be detected at point sites, which are too noisy to see a signal of one to two tenths of a degree, but is easily seen in the global average surface temperature.

While the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed (though not nearly as much as previously believed), the overall amount of heat accumulated by the global climate has not, with over 90 percent being absorbed by the oceans.

The interesting thing from a scientific perspective is that specifying the surface temperature in this region seems to anchor the coupled atmosphere / ocean circulations in a way that not only gives a better simulation of global average surface temperature, but also provides better simulations of the variability of key regional circulation features.

Requires the President, if the NAS report finds that emission reduction targets are not on schedule or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric GHG concentration thresholds, to submit a plan by July 1, 2015, to Congress identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional GHG reductions.

They clearly have not «proved» skill at predicting in a hindcast mode, changes in climate statistics on the regional scale, and even in terms of the global average surface temperature trend, in recent years they have overstated the positive trend.

There are a number of papers by Samuel S. Shen looking at the design of observing networks for estimating spherical harmonics with idealised surface temperature distributions, but I'm not aware of the technique having been used to reconstruct global average temperature using the real distribution of stations and data.

Over the last decade or so, the models have not shown an ability to predict the lack (or very muted) change in the annual average global surface temperature trend.

Internal variability can only account for ~ 0.3 °C change in average global surface air temperature at most over periods of several decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it can not account for more than a small fraction of the global warming over the past century.

-- In the event that the Administrator or the National Academy of Sciences has concluded, in the most recent report submitted under section 705 or 706 respectively, that the United States will not achieve the necessary domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions, or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration thresholds, the President shall, not later than July 1, 2015, and every 4 years thereafter, submit to Congress a plan identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional greenhouse gas reductions, including any recommendations for legislative action.

And, of course, we do not need to global climate models to run impact models with an annual average increase in the mean surface air temperature of +1 C and +2 C prescribed for the Netherlands.

Second — and I have a feeling you didn't know this — NH extratropical land surface temperatures are the main determinant of global average temperature estimates.

Victor also points out that average global surface temperatures doesn't fully represent the changing global climate.

The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially (or statistically significantly) since 1997.

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.

The fact this is seemingly not fully recognized — or here integrated — by Curry goes to the same reason Curry does not recognize why the so called «pause» is a fiction, why the «slowing» of the «rate» of increase in average ambient global land and ocean surface air temperatures over a shorter term period from the larger spike beyond the longer term mean of the 90s is also meaningless in terms of the basic issue, and why the average ambient increase in global air temperatures over such a short term is by far the least important empirical indicia of the issue.

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

Could it not change due to a variation in modes or patterns of surface temperature that preserve the global average?

They are calculated using specific methods and describe something that can be crudely described as the average surface temperature, but it's not clear, what The Global Mean Surface Temperature reasurface temperature, but it's not clear, what The Global Mean Surface Temperaturetemperature, but it's not clear, what The Global Mean Surface Temperature reaSurface TemperatureTemperature really is.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

The global average surface temperature is responsive to ENSO and to * all * the climate forcings, not just CO2 alone.

This internal variability has had a cooling effect on recent surface temperatures (though not of overall global temperatures) which is not captured in the average of the model simulations.

Sorry it doesn't pass the back of the envelope calculations especially when Dr Spencer's global average temperature at near surface have recently fallen to 2008 levels.

It is not «conduction» but exchange of radiation; if you keep your hands parallel at a distance of some cm the right hand does not (radiatively) «warm» the left hand or vice versa albeit at 33 °C skin temperature they exchange some hundreds of W / m ² (about 500 W / m ²) The solar radiation reaching the surface (for 71 % of the surface, the oceans) is lost by evaporation (or evapotranspiration of the vegetation), plus some convection (20 W / ²) and some radiation reaching the cosmos directly through the window 8µm to 12 µm (about 20 W / m ² «global» average); only the radiative heat flow surface to air (absorbed by the air) is negligible (plus or minus); the non radiative (latent heat, sensible heat) are transferred for surface to air and compensate for a part of the heat lost to the cosmos by the upper layer of the water vapour displayed on figure 6 - C.

Given that the average global surface temperature has not changed by more than 0.26 °C from one year to the next, I thought that giving him a 0.5 °C margin of error was a generous offer, but alas, McLean did not respond to my offer.

It also follows using the same semantics that: «It is more likely than not that more than the entire observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.»

That envelope is not just a matter of global - average surface temperature (to which the misleadingly innocuous term «global warming» applies) but of averages and extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry, snowpack and snowmelt, wind and storm tracks, and ocean currents and upwellings; and not just the magnitude and geographic distribution of all of these, but also the timing.

If the different methods are not analysing different definitions then why do values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) from decades ago alter when the method is changed from month to month: which is the right determination any of the ones before a change or any of those after it?

(1) The warm sea surface temperatures are not just some short - term anomaly but are part of a long - term observed warming trend, in which ocean temperatures off the US east coast are warming faster than global average temperatures.

As the Earth's surface cools further, cold conditions spread to lower latitudes but polar surface water and the deep ocean can not become much colder, and thus the benthic foraminifera record a temperature change smaller than the global average surface temperature change [43].

Five - year averaging reduces differences among temperature datasets, showing that since the mid-1970s the global surface air temperature has on average increased by 0.1 °C every five to six years, although the rate of warming, viewed from a five - year perspective, has not been steady.

lolwot: Does the Otto et al constraint of 0.9 to 2.0 °C TCS not support the IPCC statement «It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 - 2010.»?

I have to say that it would be much wiser to just say we don't have a good number on the OLWR and carry on with our analysis of total global heat change and its relationship to average global near - surface air temperature.