Sentences with phrase «on temperatures over that period»

Is there a reliable way to identify CO2's influence on temperatures over that period?

Not exact matches

Temp Traq is a one - time use thermometer that you place under your child's arm and it allows you to track their temperature over a 24 hr period of time using an app on your phone.

· over three quarters of teachers experienced classroom temperatures in excess of 24 degrees on more than a quarter of days during the survey period (four weeks in summer 2011);

However the data also shows a dramatic increase in deaths occurring over the period December 2010 to January 2011 when the country experienced the coldest December on record, temperatures fell below minus 20oC, and snow brought the UK to a standstill.

The thick covering of ice and water might mess up some of the geological processes that, at least on Earth, help regulate the planet's temperature over long periods of time.

Using different calibration and filtering processes, the two researchers succeeded in combining a wide variety of available data from temperature measurements and climate archives in such a way that they were able to compare the reconstructed sea surface temperature variations at different locations around the globe on different time scales over a period of 7,000 years.

[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.»

For significant periods of time, the reconstructed large - scale changes in the North Pacific SLP field described here and by construction the long - term decline in Hawaiian winter rainfall are broadly consistent with long - term changes in tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) based on ENSO reconstructions documented in several other studies, particularly over the last two centuries.

The researchers found that over a 15 - day period, the water temperatures were most extreme when the low tide period drifted to align with maximum sun heat during noon, and these conditions caused the warming of the shallow water on the reefs.

Using a statistical model calibrated to the relationship between global mean temperature and rates of GSL change over this time period, we are assessing the human role in historic sea - level rise and identifying human «fingerprints» on coastal flood events.

The uncertainty in the overall amplitude of the reconstruction of volcanic forcing is also important for quantifying the influence of volcanism on temperature reconstructions over longer periods, but is difficult to quantify and may be a substantial fraction of the best estimate (e.g., Hegerl et al., 2006a).

Climate scientists would say in response that changes in ocean circulation can't sustain a net change in global temperature over such a long period (ENSO for example might raise or lower global temperature on a timescale of one or two years, but over decades there would be roughly zero net change).

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the interior of a car can hit a temperature of 99 degrees in just 20 minutes on a 70 - degree day — click here to see a table of interior air temperatures over elapsed periods of time from the AVMA.

# 292 Chris, considering the very wide range of temperatures experienced on Earth during a single day, an increase of even 4 or 5 degrees over a period of 100 years strikes me as no big deal.

Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956 - 2006.

The link between global temperature and rate of sea level change provides a brilliant opportunity for cross-validation of these two parameters over the last several millenia (one might add - in the relationship between atmospheric [CO2] and Earth temperature in the period before any significant human impact on [CO2]-RRB-.

While periods of increased and decreased warming exist over the 132 - year period, the linear rate is still ~ 0.6 C / century, and the most recent monthly GISS values fall right on the linear trend (the linear trend value for the Feb. 2012 temperature anomaly is +0.38 C, while the last two months have been +0.35 and +0.40 C.)

Why not, using the same scaling, show the temperature changes from 1910 to 1945 and from 1945 to 1975 against the CO2 and Sun change over those periods and try and explain why that would show next to no relationship on that scaling?

The temperature anomaly on Earth over the same period is about 10 times larger, hence the suggestion that IF the ACRIM inferred changes in the mean insolation are correct, then the inferred increase in solar radiance would account for about 10 % of the temperature anomaly over the same period.

You are confusing the 11 years sunspot (solar irradiance) cycle which does indeed have very small effect on temperature, with longer term sunspot (solar irradiance) cycles than can effect temperatures over periods more like 50 years and up to approx. 0.5 degrees maximum.

If you have a reconstruction of annual average temperatures at a location over the past 1000 yrs with an error range of, say, + / -0.3 deg C in the proxy data, and the net temperature change over that time period is 1.0 deg C from the proxy data, your counts and timing of records are going to be heavily dependent on errors.

This paper is based on 6 monthly globally averaged temperature series over the common period 1880 - 2012 using data that were publically available in May 2015.

Until you can provide one, one that explains why the known forcings over the same period of time had no affect on temperature, they are meaningless.

Over very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivOver very long time periods such that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium with the climate, one gets a sensitivity to global temperature of about 20 ppm CO2 / deg C, or 75 ppb CH4 / deg C. On shorter timescales, the sensitivity for CO2 must be less (since there is no time for the deep ocean to come into balance), and variations over the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivover the last 1000 years or so (which are less than 10 ppm), indicate that even if Moberg is correct, the maximum sensitivity is around 15 ppm CO2 / deg C. CH4 reacts faster, but even for short term excursions (such as the 8.2 kyr event) has a similar sensitivity.

Over even longer periods of time, such as thousand year time cycles, the effect of CO2 on temperature is much more noticeable.

Over longer periods and greater temperature changes, there are indicators that do not depend on measuring instruments, although their accuracy is lower.

But their PNAS publication also referred to natural climate cycles, superimposed on the trend line, like ENSO and solar variability, both of which have been net contributors to global cooling over 1998 - 2008 [so climate skeptics can not — as they still do — point to either the Sun or El Niño to explain the world's temperature graph over that period of time].

On the other hand, Easterbrook's two temperature projections showed a 0.2 °C and 0.5 °C cooling over this period, while the IPCC TAR Scenario A2 projection showed a 0.2 °C warming (Figure 6).

We are talking about temperature changes today over a fifty year (or shorter) period, and we have absolutely no way to look at changes in the «geological past» on this fine of a timescale.

The temperature changes across the whole maps over the periods they cover are also shown by colour according to the scale on the right.

After a series of informal consultations, compromise text was introduced, which included two bullet points in the observations section, one relating to a linear trend in global temperature increase of 0.85 °C over the period 1880 and 2012, when multiple datasets exist, and another, on regional trends for 1901 - 2012.

The resulting relationship is consistent and indicates that on - site temperature provides a good estimate of ablation over a multi-week period regardless of location at a Snotel site or on a glacier.

The IPCC statement that most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations» is very much dependent on what weighting was given to natural (mainly solar) forcing over this period.

Figure 1: Gillett et al. attributable temperature changes due to greenhouse gases (red), other anthropogenic effects (green), and natural effects (blue) over each of the periods indicated in °C, based on the standard regression over the 1851 — 2010 period, with their associated uncertainties (vertical black lines).

Nasif has already answered sod's point, but just to clarify: his argument is that modern temperatures sustained over a 500 - year period in the past must must have had an enormous impact on flora and fauna.

A third example would be the research on how incoming solar irradiance influences China's thermometer temperature records, showing that over periods of many decades the variations in total solar irradiance in the upper atmosphere are matched by variations at the surface.

This is better than demanding that people who think GCMs are crap for predicting global temperatures over any lengthy time period, have to come up with their own models before they can criticized the incompetent ones you warmists rely on.

Six Chinese scientists used remotely - sensed imaging data, including leaf area index (LAI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), an enhanced vegetation index (EVI), gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP), coupled with other data (temperature, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, albedo and wind) over the period 2003 to 2014 to analyze the effects of a wind farm on summer vegetative growth in a region of northern China.

It's not very good for saying «in 2050, the temperature will be X», but it is useful for determining what range the average temperature is likely to be within over, say, a 30 - year period centered on the date in question (with much uncertainty) given certain starting conditions and certain inputs and changes in forcing over time, and.

Almost any average temperature you wish depending on how you slice it and none of it has meaning except in the case that you slice it exactly the same way over successive measurements over a long period of time might tell you something.

Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence... in addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits...

In recent decades, much research on these topics has raised the questions of «tipping points» and «system flips,» where feedbacks in the system compound to rapidly cause massive reorganization of global climate over very short periods of time — a truncation or reorganization of the thermohaline circulation or of food web structures, for instance, caused by the loss of sea ice or warming ocean temperatures.

This interesting, but rather «look... squirrel» focus on near surface temperatures flattening over a short period is quite telling about certain mindsets.

GISS describes the value as, «Temperature change of a specified mean period over a specified time interval based on local linear trends.»

«The authors write that «the Mediterranean region is one of the world's most vulnerable areas with respect to global warming,»... they thus consider it to be extremely important to determine what impact further temperature increases might have on the storminess of the region... produced a high - resolution record of paleostorm events along the French Mediterranean coast over the past 7000 years... from the sediment bed of Pierre Blanche Lagoon [near Montpellier, France]... nine French scientists, as they describe it, «recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300 - 6100, 5650 - 5400, 4400 - 4050, 3650 - 3200, 2800 - 2600, 1950 - 1400, and 400 - 50 cal yr BP,» the latter of which intervals they associate with the Little Ice Age.

Based on previously reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected; and computation of global temperature trends over longer periods does exhibit statistically significant warming.

Furthermore, based on a well - known solar activity forecast (Abdussamatov 2015) and specific assumptions on the other natural explanatory variables (i.e., volcanic and oceanic / ENSO activity), this new Research Report also provides a long - term forecast that UAH TLT temperatures are very likely to exhibit a declining trend over the period through 2026 at the least.

However, over long time periods, the variation of the global average temperature with CO2 concentration depends on various factors such as the placement of the continents on Earth, the functionality of ocean currents, the past history of the climate, the orientation of the Earth's orbit relative to the Sun, the luminosity of the Sun, the presence of aerosols in the atmosphere, volcanic action, land clearing, biological evolution, etc..

Such methods are once again used in this new research and prove that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on the UAH TLT 6.0 temperature data set over the period 1979 to 2016.

Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 ¡ C over the period 1956 - 2006.