Kevin Trenberth is now arguing that the reason
observed air temperature trends don't match modeled trends is because of «missing heat» in the oceans.
Not exact matches
411 SG Bolstrom, I am
observing a particular
trend unlike the recent past, whereas the Arctic
air profiles are leaning more adiabatically during winter, this means a whole lot of confusion with respect to temperature trends, namely the high Upper Air should cool as the surface warms, and the reverse, the Upper air warms when heat from the lower atmosphere is transferred upwar
air profiles are leaning more adiabatically during winter, this means a whole lot of confusion with respect to
temperature trends, namely the high Upper
Air should cool as the surface warms, and the reverse, the Upper air warms when heat from the lower atmosphere is transferred upwar
Air should cool as the surface warms, and the reverse, the Upper
air warms when heat from the lower atmosphere is transferred upwar
air warms when heat from the lower atmosphere is transferred upwards.
The above model results have significant implications because the
observed air -
temperature trend over the elevated Himalayas has accelerated to between 0.15 — 0.3 K per decade18 during the past several decades.
Canadian Ice Service, 4.7, Multiple Methods As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010, and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on
observed end - of - winter arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface
Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and
trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model, which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.
Canadian Ice Service, 4.7 (+ / - 0.2), Heuristic / Statistical (same as June) The 2015 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on
observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness extents, as well as winter Surface
Air Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and vector wind anomaly patterns and
trends; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent timeseries into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.
Canadian Ice Service; 5.0; Statistical As with Canadian Ice Service (CIS) contributions in June 2009 and June 2010, the 2011 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on
observed end - of - winter Arctic Multi-Year Ice (MYI) extents, as well as an examination of Surface
Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and
trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere, and sea ice predictors.
Canadian Ice Service, 4.7 (± 0.2), Heuristic / Statistical (same as June) The 2015 forecast was derived by considering a combination of methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on
observed end - of - winter Arctic ice thickness extents, as well as winter Surface
Air Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and vector wind anomaly patterns and
trends; 2) a simple statistical method, Optimal Filtering Based Model (OFBM), that uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate the September sea ice extent timeseries into the future and 3) a Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.
Despite the many unresolved issues touched on in this chapter and discussed in more detail in chapters 5 — 9, the progress that has been achieved over the past few years provides a basis for drawing some tentative conclusions concerning the nature of the
observed differences between surface and upper
air temperature trends, and their implications for the detection and attribution of global climate change.break
Map of
trends (°C / century) of annual (July — June) mean surface
air temperature for
observing stations west of 116 ° W. Triangles mark statistically significant (p < 0.05)
trends (red, upward pointing: positive; blue, downward pointing: negative).
My attempts to determine the ratios and differences between the
observed ocean
air versus ocean SST
temperature trends to compare with the model results were limited by the sparseness of the
observed data.
As a result the most those papers can do is attempt to quantify the effects on measurements such as model TCR and model
trends using
air temperatures for land and ocean and comparisons with the
observed using blended
temperatures.
The thing is that as regards the sequence of
observed events leading to changes in tropospheric
temperature trends and the cyclical poleward and equatorward shifts in the
air circulation systems the NCM is pretty robust.