Sentences with phrase «on global temperature»

Natural climate patterns like El Niño or La Niña can make the average global temperature fluctuate from year to year; that's why the lines on a global temperature graph zigzag.

So while the cooling effect is unlikely to grow much, the gases will accumulate and have an ever - bigger effect on global temperature.

I think this talk most importantly tackles one of the biggest (and in my opinion most important) assumptions of the cAGW theory - the complete reduction of natural variation and influence on global temperature and co2 levels.

Opening of the Drake Passage surely affected ocean circulation around Antarctica, but efforts to find a significant effect on global temperature have relied on speculation about possible effects on atmospheric CO2 [37].

There is a clear impact on global temperature, too, though the mechanisms are complex: heat released from the oceans; increases in water vapor, which enhance the greenhouse effect, and redistributions of clouds.

Statistically, the impact on global temperature peaks two or three months after changes in the tropical Pacific.

Critics have previously complained about lack of transparency in climate studies based on global temperature records maintained by the Met Office in collaboration with the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

It is a confirmation of the results also found by other studies before, with varying methodology, that the recent alleged «pause» is very likely, to a large degree, nothing more than just a temporary downward deviation from the median trend by chance, mostly due to the chaotic ENSO variability imprinting itself on the global temperature trends, like the «acceleration» between 1992 and 2007 (with a trend of about 0.25 - 0.3 deg.

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one - third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed.

It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was also an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere.

No catastrophic global warming either, so CO2 levels have only the smallest of effects on global temperature — H2O vapour is the major GHG.

In their paper, McLean et al. found that the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has a large influence on global temperature variability (i.e. short - term changes), but they also slipped a conclusion into their paper which was not supported by their research:

However, a primary question regarding global climate variability is the actual role that carbon dioxide is assumed to have on global temperature.

It was authored by Charlotte Wickham, Judith Curry, Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, and Jonathan Wurtele and is titled Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications.

In a paper a few years back, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a very similar study to one we recently examined from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), filtering out short - term effects on global temperature to tease out the human and natural contributions to global warming.

Beyond year - to - year variability such as El Niño there are decade - to - decade changes, such as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, which has been shown to have a marked impact on global temperature rise.

Please, by all means, show me on any global temperature record including SST the two decades or more that rose 0.17 C / decade + at 95 % CI, preceding the supposed pause also at 95 % CI.

[DC: As I understand it there is some disagreement among climate scientists on the impact of decadal or multi-decadal natural «oscillations» on global temperature.

It follows that «this context», the context of Dr Curry's enquiry here, is * not * human effects on global temperature.

So if the actual temperature was close to «Scenario C» (which it was), this shows that all the CO2 that has been emitted since 2000 plus half of what was emitted between 1990 and 2000 have had no impact on global temperature at all.

Quantitative insights on global temperature sensitivity to external forcings [51]--[52] and sea level sensitivity to global temperature [52]--[53] are crucial to our analyses.

In fact, if the quasi-periodic effects on global temperature are as strong as Tsonis proposes, then this would strongly suggest that the sensitivity of models is at present too low; and that the heating on the scale of the coming century is likely to be at the high end, or worse, of IPCC expectations.

That's exactly what was done in a new paper by Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi: 10.1038 / nature12534) which investigates the impact of the tropical Pacific sea surface temperature on global temperature change.

Ozone is technically a greenhouse gas because it has an effect on global temperature.

As such, ENSO — whatever its cause (and it's been happening naturally for a long time)-- has far - reaching affects on weather over a large area, and a notable impact on global temperature.

Her first mistake — quite an embarrassing one really — was to assume that this was the influence of ENSO on global temperature history.

If we take the difference between the POGA - H models (with ENSO constrained to follow historical data) and the HIST models, we see the estimated influence of ENSO on global temperature history:

Alex Gardner trusts the IPCC, but notes that from 2001 to 2007 that body reduced by half its estimate of one major impact on global temperature.

Dr. Marcia Rocha, Head of Climate Policy Team Policy Analysis Team leader, research scientist specialised in advanced data analysis and modelling; works on equity, and analyses emissions reduction targets and their impact on global temperature rise.

While the ENSO phenomenon has a potent impact on global temperature, it's one of those phenomena which doesn't create a long - term trend.

As shown by Figure 1, omission of South America and Africa has only a tiny effect on the global temperature change.

The only researched and quantified contribution of atmosphere on global temperature has been that of applying the Ideal Gas Laws and insolation [familiar to those educated before the popularity of «back radiation»]- Nikolov and Zeller being one example using empirically derived data from other atmospheric bodies within the Solar System.

These are all questions that have yet to be conclusively answered, it seems to me, although IMO the preponderance of evidence suggests that man's influence on CO2 levels is more likely than not to have some kind of upward influence on global temperature.

Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons.

Sixteen years of steadily rising CO2 has had absolutely no effect on the global temperature.

We do not know all the different mechanisms by which the sun can have an influence on global temperature either directly or indirectly.

On the other hand, I'm not talking about smaller eruptions» effects on the global temperature.

At 10 GT / Y of emissions we can burn all the fossil fuel reserves and more with little or no effect on global temperature other than an initial increase in forcing of about 0.6 - 0.9 W / m2 over the next 40 years.

The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level.

So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

During this two - week transition period, any water vapor excess (or deficit) relative to the equilibrium distribution did of course produce a radiative greenhouse heating (or cooling) effect, but this «virtual forcing» was very transient in nature, without any lasting impact on the global temperature.

There is no testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence showing that human - emitted CO2 has any effect on global temperature.

Recently, U.K. journalist David Rose claimed that methodological flaws by NOAA scientists cast doubt on the global temperature record.

As a result, its effect on global temperature must be nil.

I will guarantee that you will only find a negative influence on global temperature, since that is the way I have build my models.

of: Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature David R.B. Stockwell, August 23, 2011

@Mike Edwards: There are lots of studies — hundreds, at least — of the urban heat island effect, and quite a lot of effort has gone into identifying, quantifying, modelling, and adjusting for the effect of UHI on global temperature records.

It is a climate sub-system that has enormous influence on global temperature, hydrology and biology.