Sentences with phrase «past temperature readings»

Though trivial, the problem this example describes extends to all past temperature readings.

Not exact matches

A good chunk of this past week's weather involved drizzling and cool temperatures, and believe me, it... Read More

These yearly rings change with temperature and rainfall, so they could read past weather by calibrating ring widths of living trees with instrumental data from 1959 - 2009, then comparing these with the innards of much older trees.

The only indication of probable ice melting in the past is the temperature readings of nearby stations.

Sadly the 50 - 60 degree weather we have been experiencing in central Ohio for the past week or so has been replaced by the seasonal arctic temperatures one would expect at this time Keep Reading

What really concerns me is that I've read a lot about climate models not being able to replicate the magnitude of abrupt regional temperature changes in the past, and Raypierre has said here that he fears that past climate records point towards some yet unknown positive feedback which might amplify warming at the northern latitudes.

That should read: «The average temperature of the SARGASSO SEA has varied within a range of about 3 °C during the past 3,000 years.»

In the past, even this was ignored in favour of a reading of water temperature from a bucket, or in the vicinity of engine cooling water inlets.

Have you read the published reports that the four agencies that track the earth's temperature (NASA Goddard Institute, Hadley Climate Research Unit, Christy group, and Remote Sensing Systems, Inc.) have all reported the earth has cooled 0.7 C in the past year?

«The temperature variations read in the past century could be part of a larger process that is alien to humanity.»

(Forecast high temperatures for Europe on Tuesday, August 5 show readings above 26 C [80] F extending well past the Arctic Circle in Sweden.

According to the Pew Research Center: «Nearly seven - in - ten (69 %)[Americans] say there is solid evidence that the earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up six points [continue reading...]

I read many skeptics comments and even articles which allege or show what appears to be a systematic bias to adjust recent temperatures upward, adjust past temperatures downward or smooth temperature fluxuations so as to reduce natural variability.

The only way to evaluate past global climate with today's would be to have accurate temperature readings from the same locations for several periods from 1000 to 1850 AD.

Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia, Esper et al, 01/2012; read more here.

One reading from the Danish Meteorological Institute, for example, found that over the past several days temperatures have been about 36 degrees Fahrenheit higher than average around the North Pole.

In the past I have read commenters saying things like: «Coastal winds are driven more by temperature differences between land and ocean.»

The team had been examining cores drilled from the Antarctic ice to «read» the pattern of temperatures of the past.

I've suggested in the past that the difference in min temperature readings might be a result of the station move rather than the instrument change, as many MMTS stations are located closer to buildings than their LiG predecessors.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that «the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.»

So, after reading about climate change for awhile and how the «Temperature of the Earth» has moved up and down in increments of hundredths of a degree, over the past millennium or two, you are looking for a precise, scientific definition of the thing that has varied?

I just thought that since the proxies are all (as far as I know) annual readings such as tree rings or lake sediments they each can be determined to a precise year in the past, and the global temperatures are compared on an annual basis, perhaps you lose accuracy (or is it precision?)

The results of this proxy formula didn't match up with actual temperature readings past 1960, so to make their method look like it had more skill (accuracy) than it did, they simply grafted the actual temperature series to the end of the tree ring proxy temperature series.

Reading all of these comments, my conclusion... any scientist who claims to understand the accurate past and present temperature readings around the earth for the last 150 years is blowing smoke up your butt.

If past readings in the U S can't be trusted and have to be adjusted by some artificial and subjective set of algorithms, how can the scientific community have any understanding or confidence in the past temperatures of the rest of the world.

The more I read about this subject the more I am convinced that the scientists are nuts who claim they have some sort of understanding of the earth's past temperatures.

Let us assume that the tree ring proxies and direct readings of temperature from dinosaur anal bones gives us a real idea of what Celsius the past encompassed.

The current warming trend 1998 - 2005, has no precedent in recent Arctic memory, there were a few unique occasions when open water was seen during mid-winter over Barrow Strait, but this was at roughly 10 year intervals, now the intervals are totally irregular, but between Islands ice cover is not the best indication of warming, monthly temperature readings for the past 4 years or so, have been mostly above normal by 1 to the occasional 4 to 5 degrees.

Forgiving for the moment Gavin Schmidt, the advocate, for his science shortcomings in this matter, reading the article in question brings into sharp focus the lack of attention in the past to potential biases in the temperature records and particularly the SST record.

As temperatures fall, (half a degree in the past few months, wiping out half a century of manmade climate change in the flight of a swallow) and as the Paris Agreement looks likely to follow the Iran Nuclear Deal into oblivion, and as climate activists are vanishing faster than Arctic ice, some in a puff... Continue reading →

Go away and do some reading and you will find the answer why CO2 has caused temperatures to rise in the past and why CO2 is called a Greenhouse Gas.