Sentences with phrase «rather than the surface temperatures»

Jones was referring to the cooling shown by tree ring proxies after the 1960s, rather than the surface temperature record.

He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the dodgy data as being an accidental product of the satellite's malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.

Not exact matches

They include higher sea surface temperatures over the Indian Ocean, which can lead to greater rainfall over the sea rather than on land.

Past eclipses have revealed that the corona's temperature distribution is patchy: rather than a smooth transition from relatively cool to sizzling hot, the corona has areas of higher and cooler temperatures that don't seem to depend on their proximity to the sun's surface.

Rather than using the stresses caused by the temperature - dependent surface tension directly to pattern the film, the group's approach relies on the flow pattern in the thicker layer to deform the thinner film beneath.

It is also worth reading «The Elusive Absolute Surface Temperature» to understand why we care about the anomalies rather than the absolute values.

These temperatures are typical of underground hydrothermal environments rather than surface waters.

Surface activity of Channel Islands slender salamanders in winter is limited by moisture rather than low temperatures, as freezing conditions are rare on the northern Channel Islands (Schoenherr et al., 1999).

Ray, I think Lee Grable's point is important: The fact that we use the term «global temperature» to mean the average temperature on a two - dimensional surface rather than the three - dimensional ocean plus land plus atmosphere system of the earth has the potential to allow confusion.

It is also worth reading «The Elusive Absolute Surface Temperature» to understand why we care about the anomalies rather than the absolute values.

Second, as Gavin pointed out, the land - ocean temperature index tends to underestimate the truth because it's based on sea surface temperature rather than air temperature, while the meteorological - station index temperature tends to overestimate the truth because land warms faster than ocean.

There's one piece to that jigsaw which is not often discussed: the primary feedbacks (water vapour, clouds), which ultimately determine the magnitude of the imbalance, are mainly dependent on surface temperature change rather than the mere presence of GHGs or related energy fluxes.

The temperatures at the tops of high clouds are much colder than the surface, and thus reduce the energy loss of the planet better than low clouds (which emit at temperatures rather close to that of the surface).

In 2) i wanted to discuss the different forcing efficacies of solar shortwave compared to anthro fossil carbon combustion upon global average surface temperature, rather than the emission temperature at top of atmosphere

Paul S (# 1)-- Since the Planck Response dominates over positive feedback responses to temperature, wouldn't a La Nina - like failure of surface temperature to rise lead to an increase rather than a reduction in energy accumulation compared with accumulation during a surface warming — presumably a small increase, so that the observed rise in ocean heat content would still be substantial?

As far as I am aware, temperatures of the atmosphere close to the surface, rather than the actual surface, are usually measured over land, unless measured remotely by satellites, in which case the temperature of the material overlaying the Earth's surface is measured, rarely the surface itself.

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

The results are shown in the second part of Figure 4 (click the «from UAH button»), and show the same pattern but with a rather muted signal - this is because the geographical variation in LT temperature anomalies is rather smaller than for surface temperatures.

In a sense, gravity «props up» the surface end of the plot of temperature against altitude, rather than Hansen's concept that atmospheric (back) radiation does it.

Even in areas where precipitation does not decrease, these increases in surface evaporation and loss of water from plants lead to more rapid drying of soils if the effects of higher temperatures are not offset by other changes (such as reduced wind speed or increased humidity).5 As soil dries out, a larger proportion of the incoming heat from the sun goes into heating the soil and adjacent air rather than evaporating its moisture, resulting in hotter summers under drier climatic conditions.6

The changes produced a decrease of 0.006 °C / decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003 °C / decade increase reported by NCEI.

The Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) global surface temperature anomaly time series is based on observations from publicly available observational data sets rather than models.

Steve Fitzpatrick says: «It is an real contribution to link the ENSO to the AMO (this gives the AMO a more solid rational for influencing global temperatures), but it is I think unwise to suggest that ENSO driven cycles are (rather than could possibly be) responsible for most of the observed ocean surface warming since 1900.»

It is an real contribution to link the ENSO to the AMO (this gives the AMO a more solid rational for influencing global temperatures), but it is I think unwise to suggest that ENSO driven cycles are (rather than could possibly be) responsible for most of the observed ocean surface warming since 1900.

H2O — said to be the most potent «greenhouse gas» — doesn't cause warming in the open atmosphere; rather it drops the temperature of surface level air; it acts like an evaporative cooler (commonly called a «swamp cooler») rather than a greenhouse.

With the surface being more than 70 % water, which evaporates in response to IR rather than raising its temperature, there is no radiation - only algebra that can determine temperatures.

However, the situation is complicated by multiple other factors that include delay in the response of global temperature to regional ENSO phenomena, and the triggering of feedbacks that can heat or cool the ocean in the same direction as surface trends rather than opposing them.

I am making the point that the surface temperature would be more like 299K if, for example, the emissivity of the dry rocky planet without water or vegetation were 0.75 rather than the 1.0000 value used for the black body temperature.

Consequently, the UHI effects from skin temperature are shown to be pronounced at both daytime and nighttime, rather than at night as previously suggested from surface air temperature measurements.»

Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters.

The problem, in this case, is the abuse of power (Tom Karl, Tom Peterson, Peter Thorne) to defend their surface temperature data, rather than to engage in constructive scientific discussion.

Projections emphasizing relative rather than absolute sea surface temperature changes suggest little change in hurricane destructiveness in the 21st Century [17](Fig. 8).

If the effect of CO2 is «nada» then why didn't the surface temperature drop during the pause rather than merely increase at a reduced rate?

Cowtab and Way is clearly a better way to calculate surface temperature, because it uses more information (i.e. UAH LT), and kriging (rather than extrapolate over large areas).

«As to satellites, the data are quite difficult to interpret in a qualitatively accurate manner (there is a long history of corrections of past shortcomings to improve the data products), and the data are not the temperature that most of us live in and grow our food in down here at the surface, but instead some moderately complicated average of conditions above us somewhere in the atmosphere (much better definitions can be given, but the satellites measure some weighted average up there rather than the surface down here).

Since the scaling factor used is based purely on simulations by CMIP5 models, rather than on observations, the estimate is only valid if those simulations realistically reproduce the spatiotemporal pattern of actual warming for both SST and near - surface air temperature (tas), and changes in sea - ice cover.

-------- I agree that is is too bad that some are so transfixed on the rather limited and rather small energy content and low thermal inertia of the troposphere as displayed in surface temperatures, but it certainly provides some fuel for the endless chatter and yipping of denialists as the surface temperatures exhibit far more natural variability than the larger metric of ocean heat content.

Rather than look at surface temperature, try looking at ocean heat content.

Why are you correlating CFC's against surface temperatures as an indication of what might be occurring rather than against total change in the heat content of the entire system?

Another strength is that the microwave sensors gather temperature data for a deep layer of the atmosphere, rather than just at the surface.

Because the temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet's supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about − 18 °C (0 °F), [2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).

Aug. 15, 2017: The standard GISTEMP analysis now uses the ERSST version 5 dataset for sea surface temperatures, rather than ERRST v. 4.

Even if we assume that the average surface temperature increased by 0.8 C over the 60 year period causing an increase of 4.3 W / m2 in Su, then τ changes by 0.6 % rather than the 0.9 % in your example.

Here, the GHE will, for all intents and purposes, be defined as the set of conditions that are responsible for discrepancy between the observed global mean surface temperature of a planet and that predicted based on the energy flux received from the sun, rather than being restricted to a mere radiative balance.

All of these studies, as well as our more recent ones, include the moderating effect of atmospheric stabilization aloft under high CO2 conditions, rather than simply increasing the sea surface temperature alone.

Thus in terms of impacts the problem is surface warming — which is described much better by actually measuring surface temperatures rather than total ocean heat content.

Similarly, Demezhko and Gornostaeva (2015) found that the heat energy change in the deep oceans during the climate transition from the last ice age to this current interglacial occurred «2 - 3 thousands of years» before the increases in surface temperature and CO2, and that «the increase of carbon dioxide may be a consequence [rather than a cause] of temperature increasing».

N - G: Estimation of surface temperature changes in poorly - covered regions is enough to reverse the slight cooling in the recent decadal averages in HadCRUT4, turning it into a slowing rather than a hiatus according to your definition.

It is the net impact of multiple ocean surface temperature changes, rather than a single ocean basin change, that plays a main driver for the multi-decadal global warming accelerations and slowdowns.