Sentences with phrase «planet the temperature data»

By Penny Starr In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or «very close to zero.»

So putting all the planets temperature data on one global scale is a mistake.

Not exact matches

The Georgia Tech researchers are already using it to explore sea surface temperature and cloud field data, two aspects that profoundly affect the planet's climate.

Using infrared in near darkness through very little atmosphere, the team received data enabling it for the first time to estimate the surface temperatures over the planet's night side.

Analysis of the first seven years of data from a NASA cloud - monitoring mission suggests clouds are doing less to slow the warming of the planet than previously thought, and that temperatures may rise faster than expected as greenhouse gas pollution worsens — perhaps 25 percent faster.

Study co-author Nuno Santos, an astrophysicist at the Center for Astrophysics at the University of Porto in Portugal, and his colleagues took chemical - abundance data, derived from precision light spectra, on 133 stars of roughly sunlike temperature from the HARPS survey, 30 of which are known to harbor planets.

In combing through data from the European Space Agency's Venus Express mission, the scientists found transient spikes in temperature at several spots on the planet's surface.

Last month was far and away the hottest February on record for the planet, by a margin that has surprised even the climate scientists who closely monitor global temperature data.

The two agencies use slightly different methods of assembling the global temperature data, leading to the slightly varying numbers, though both datasets show the clear warming of the planet.

Researchers working with data from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found the strongest evidence to date for the existence of a stratosphere — the layer of an atmosphere in which temperature increases with altitude — on an exoplanet (a planet outside of the Solar System).

Global positioning satellites (GPS); remote sensing for water, minerals, and crop and land management; weather satellites, arms treaty verifications; high - temperature, light - weight materials; revolutionary medical procedures and equipment; pagers, beepers, and television and internet to remote areas of the world; geographic information systems (GIS) and algorithms used to handle huge, complex data sets; physiologic monitoring and miniaturization; atmospheric and ecological monitoring; and insight into our planet's geological history and future — the list goes on and on.

With limited data, it was impossible to estimate the precise temperature inside the disk, which is essential for the understanding of the planet formation in the disk.

Layer your view of shifting continents with data on atmospheric composition, temperature, biodiversity, day length, and solar luminosity, to get a more complete view of our dynamic planet.

I've personally examined ALL the temperature data for the lifetime of the planet and I've made not one but two great discoveries.

As an example (and I don't have data, just a thought experiment), when we estimate average global temperature and we grid up the planet, how do we test that the grid size is appropriate to sample?

The data - sifting methods of the Berkeley project, largely developed by a brilliant data analyst, Robert Rohde (there's more on him here), have clearly added value to longstanding efforts to clarify temperature trends across a variegated planet.

Even putting aside the OHC data and fingerprinting, there is absolutely no evidence in model simulations (or in prevailing reconstructions of the Holocene), that an unforced climate would exhibit half - century timescale global temperature swings of order ~ 1 C. I don't see a good theoretical reason why this should be the case, but since Judith lives on «planet observations» it should be a pause for thought.

According to data from the World Health Organization, rising temperatures on the planet are killing off the equivalent of a mid-sized city every year; about 150,000 annual deaths can be attributed to global warming, from causes including heat waves, air pollution, infectious disease, food safety and production, flooding and more.

Verify using data collected only over the 1/3 of the planet that is covered with land strikes me as odd, particularly because we expect the land temperatures to rise faster than ocean temperatures.

Actual temperature data doesn't cooperate with their party line that mankind is ruining the planet with its addiction to so - called fossil fuels and its appetite for ample, affordable energy.

«When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius [11 degrees Fahrenheit], which would have devastating consequences for the planet,» Fatih Birol, economist with the IEA, told Reuters.

What is very important to take from this data is that the rise and fall of global temperatures and the rise and fall of CO2 emissions is a completely natural cycle that the planet has gone through on many occasions.

In the article, headlined «Time that climate alarmists fessed up,» Bolt claimed that «the planet hasn't actually warmed for a decade - or even 15 years, according to new temperature data from Britain's Met Office.»

I am more interested in the temperature of earth + atmosphere as observable from space, as that is the temperature determined by radiative equilibrium adn for which we have comparative data for other planets.

Deriving a reliable global temperature from the instrument data is not easy because the instruments are not evenly distributed across the planet, the hardware and observing locations have changed over the years, and there has been extensive land use change (such as urbanization) around some of the sites.

New Hansen analysis and global temperature data counter disinformers who say the planet is cooling

But emissivity of a rocky planet would certainly be less than 0.88 and so the temperature would be over 290K and thus there is actually cooling by greenhouse gases, as empirical data proves to be the case for water vapour.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

Owing to the intense interest of news organizations in this annual taking of the planet's temperature, the three groups coordinate with one another and all release their data on the same day.

and one more confirming the data Paul points out above: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html... The supposed «consensus» on man - made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years...

«When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,» Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters.

Proxy data, especially O - 18 / O - 16 ratios indicate that the planet may very well have begun the descent into the next glacial about 8,000 years ago, around which time post-Pleistocene temperatures seem to have peaked.

Here we start with endlessly faulty data — from instruments parked on urban «heat islands» to severely massaged data bases of daily temperature readings, from sketchy numbers for the vast reaches of the planet where there are almost no readings, to expurgation of decades of inconvenient data.

Dr. Spencer's diligent work on tracking the planet's temperature provides a tamper - proof source of data with which to test predictions of man - made global warming.

25 years of collecting unreliable (at best) and «noisy» temperature data from all over the face of the world, computer modeling over an even smaller span of years by people working on government grants and there you have it folks, predictions of gloom and doom for our planet with «information» extrapolated from 1850 to 2300 with all sorts of «modeled» graphs and pretty «manufactured» pictures offered as proof.

«The data are very strong that the planet is warming, as shown by analyses by NASA, NOAA, the Berkeley Earth group and others, by data from thermometers in the air including those well away from cities, thermometers in the ocean and in the ground, taken up by balloons and looking down from space, and changes in temperature - sensitive snow and ice and plants and animals,» said Alley.

Through temperature data, they are still just hunting for trends to the exclusion of the parameters the planet and sun has changed.

Moreover, not only have all of the AGW alarmist computer models failed spectacularly and repeatedly, but the alarmists have been caught red - handed once again engaging in wholesale fraud fraud, blatantly tampering with the temperature data, in order to be able to falsely claim that the planet is warming.

But I'm sure if I was a state climatologist, aware that a fellow state climatologist had been summarily fired for questioning AGW, I might write a newspaper column singing a lunatic's praises too — and turn a blind eye to all the missing raw data, and the endless «adjustments» that always mysteriously go in an upward direction, and the thoroughly corrupt, scheming UN / IPCC, and the plain fact that the planet itself is falsifying the CO2 - CAGW hypothesis: as CO2 steadily rises, the global temperature has been flat to declining for most of the past decade: click

The GISTEMP dataset provides gridded global temperature estimates covering almost the entire planet over recent decades: This data allows us to estimate the effect of poor coverage in the other datasets.

4 Volokin et al have shown that planetary surface temperatures are a function of solar insolation and surface pressure only, not GHG concentrations, on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data, including Earth & Venus.

These sets of data are constructed by taking the high and the low temperature of the stations around the planet and averaging the temperatures until the annual average temperature anomaly is reached.

If this is the best such land area surface temperature assessment system on the planet (covering, as well, a broad range of metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas), and the quality of the system is now proven to be demonstrably more prone to error than had been previously assumed — with the preponderance of error shown to produce the impression of warming in excess of real conditions prevailing — what may be reliably inferred about surface temperature monitoring systems data from even less reliable thermometers all over the rest of the world?

By comparing the atmospheric CO2 increase (note that since CO2 is well - mixed in the atmosphere, a single ice core record can be used as an accurate representation for CO2 - Shakun et al. used the Antarctic EPICA Dome C ice core for CO2 data) to these many different temperature records, Shakun et al. are able to discern whether the CO2 increase led or lagged temperature changes in various different geographic locations, and for the planet as a whole.

3 brave researchers finally figure out what has been obvious to mathematical modelers (who know to backtest models on past, known, data) since day one of the IPCC extravaganza - we could double atmospheric CO2 and the chance of the planet tipping into a 4.5 C temperature increase (current catastrophe scenario being peddled) would still remain under 1 %.

It will also include scientifically refuting the apparent falsification of the above «dangerous AGW» hypothesis, which has resulted from the observed «lack of warming» of our planet over the past decade (atmosphere, at both the surface and troposphere since 2001, sea surface temperature since ARGO measurements were installed in 2003), despite record increase in atmospheric CO2, as measured at Mauna Loa, by demonstrating with empirical data where the «missing energy» is hiding.

(Also better to use UAH instead of crappy adjusted GISS from urban weather stations plus made up temperature data for much of planet.)

The problem with focusing on one data set to makes or refute a case like surface temperature is the planet is more complex than that.

Earth is the warmest it's been in 100,000 years, a new reconstruction of historical temperature data finds, and with today's level of fossil fuel emissions the planet is «locked into» eventually hitting its highest temperature mark in 2 million years.