Sentences with phrase «surface value average»

By September, mid-ocean values were hot enough to have reached the critical threshold of 0.5 C above surface value average.

Not exact matches

Under midrange projections for economic growth and technological change, the planet's average surface temperature in 2050 will be about two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than its preindustrial value.

On the surface, Flying Club miles are highly valuable — we estimate that a point carries, on average, a value of $ 0.026.

More than 95 % of the 5 yr running mean of the surface temperature change since 1850 can be replicated by an integration of the sunspot data (as a proxy for ocean heat content), departing from the average value over the period of the sunspot record (~ 40SSN), plus the superimposition of a ~ 60 yr sinusoid representing the observed oceanic oscillations.

, they just say «average») with a surface temperature anomaly of GISS with base value 1951 - 1980!

My amateur spreadsheet tracking and projecting the monthly NASA GISS values suggests that while 2018 and 2019 are likely to be cooler than 2017, they may also be the last years on Earth with global average land and ocean surface temperature anomaly below 1C above pre-industrial average (using 1850 - 1900 proxy).

the problem is that this definition implicitly assumes that the global, time average surface temperature is a definite single valued function of the radiative average forcing, which is far from being true since there are considerable horizontal heat transfer modifying the latitudinal repartition of temperature: the local vertical radiative budget is NOT verified.

It stands to reason that the oceans haven't been that warm in a while but since the average temperature of the whole mass of water is so dependent on circulation (it's only the surface temperature that's constrained by its interactions with the atmosphere and space), I suppose a plausible history of that particular value would be very hard to reconstruct.

Present estimates are that limiting the increase in global average surface temperature to no more than 2 — 2.5 °C above its 1750 value of approximately 15 °C will be required to avoid the most catastrophic, but certainly not all, consequences of climate change.

El Nino events can temporarily significantly bump the global average surface temperature up from the value it would have been if ENSO was neural, and that the amount of the bump depends upon the timing, strength, and duration?

The Oceanic Niño Index, the three - month - average sea surface temperature departure from the long - term normal in one region of the Pacific Ocean, is the primary number we use to measure the ocean part of El Niño, and that value for November — January is 2.3 °C, tied with the same period in 1997 - 98.

By assuming that the absolute value of the «average» surface temperature common to both the atmosphere and oceans is 4 - 5 C lower than the actual, there would be considerable error wouldn't there?

The average absolute value of the air temperature close to the Earth's surface hit a new record in July.

So it seems to me that the simple way of communicating a complex problem has led to several fallacies becoming fixed in the discussions of the real problem; (1) the Earth is a black body, (2) with no materials either surrounding the systems or in the systems, (3) in radiative energy transport equilibrium, (4) response is chaotic solely based on extremely rough appeal to temporal - based chaotic response, (5) but at the same time exhibits trends, (6) but at the same time averages of chaotic response are not chaotic, (7) the mathematical model is a boundary value problem yet it is solved in the time domain, (8) absolutely all that matters is the incoming radiative energy at the TOA and the outgoing radiative energy at the Earth's surface, (9) all the physical phenomena and processes that are occurring between the TOA and the surface along with all the materials within the subsystems can be ignored, (10) including all other activities of human kind save for our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, (11) neglecting to mention that if these were true there would be no problem yet we continue to expend time and money working on the problem.

Clearly, to use a single value (the global average annual average surface temperature trend) to characterize global warming is a naive approach and is misleading policymakers on the actual complexity of the climate system.

The average surface air temperature analysis homepage explains more about the production and reliability of the values presented here.

Average values of the different terms in the energy budgets of the atmosphere and surface are given in the diagram.

Running twelve - month averages of global - mean and European - mean surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1981 - 2010, based on monthly values from January 1979 to March 2018.

Of the radiant energy reaching the top of the atmosphere, 46 percent is absorbed by Earth's surface on average, but this value varies significantly from place to place, depending on cloudiness, surface type, and elevation.

Running twelve - month averages of global - mean and European - mean surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1981 - 2010, based on monthly values from January 1979 to April 2018.

Running twelve - month averages of global - mean and European - mean surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1981 - 2010, based on monthly values from January 1979 to February 2018.

To Jim D When you measure OLR from satellites you actually sample the OLR intensity over many thousands of samples over the entire Eartyh and then average the values because the individual values are entirley dependent on the temperature of that area of the surface that the OLR is radiated from.

Since we do have measured values for the surface averaged incoming energy flux and the outgoing energy flux we have constraints for modelling the processes between these two endpoints.

The figure shows (with colored circles) the value of the trend in observed global average surface temperatures in lengths ranging from 10 to 64 years and in all cases ending in 2014 (the so - called «warmest year on record»).

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for SW Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to March 2018.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for NE Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to March 2018.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for SW Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to February 2018.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for NW Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to February 2018.

At the «surface» that would be ~ 340 Wm - 2 (roughly the average Tmin or DWLR value).

While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period.

But again such global averages are of little value: regional observations should be related to the regional cloud coverage and albedo and possibly to changes of the strength of surface currents.

This specific value of temperature and the lapse rate and altitude give the effective surface average temperature.

If the different methods are not analysing different definitions then why do values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) from decades ago alter when the method is changed from month to month: which is the right determination any of the ones before a change or any of those after it?

Each team that produces values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) uses a different definition; e.g. the weightings they apply to land and ocean differ and they compute gridding differently.

richardscourtney says: June 27, 2014 at 6:36 am «Each team that produces values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) uses a different definition; e.g. the weightings they apply to land and ocean differ and they compute gridding differently.»

Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6 °C.

We have two new entries to the long (and growing) list of papers appearing the in recent scientific literature that argue that the earth's climate sensitivity — the ultimate rise in the earth's average surface temperature from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content — is close to 2 °C, or near the low end of the range of possible values presented by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

`... over the 100 years since 1870 the successive five year values of average temperatures in England have been highly significantly correlated with the best estimates of the averages for the whole Northern Hemisphere and for the whole earth» (In this last comment he is no doubt referring to his work at CRU where global surface records back to 1860 or so were eventually gathered) he continued; «they probably mean that over the last three centuries the CET temperatures provide a reasonable indication of the tendency of the global climatic regime.»

>> Recognition of the sensitivity of global climate dynamics to small changes in average surface temperature implies that the degree of safety assumed in the policy target of limiting increase to no more than 2 °C above the pre-industrial value, is a delusion.

The global land surface temperature was 1.30 °C (2.34 °F) above the 20th century average of 9.0 °C (48.1 °F) and ties with 2015 as the second highest value for the year - to - date, behind 2016.

La Niña events are operationally defined using the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), which is the three - month running - mean values of sea surface temperature departures from average in the Niño 3.4 region of the central Pacific (bounded by 5N - 5S, 120 - 170W).

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for NE Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to April 2018.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for NW Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to April 2018.

If I remember correctly, models spin up to stable values at different average surface temperatures over a range of ~ 4 C.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for SE Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to April 2018.

Running four - month averages of anomalies over land areas for SW Europe with respect to 1981 - 2010 for precipitation, the relative humidity of surface air, the volumetric moisture content of the top 7 cm of soil and surface air temperature, based on monthly values from January 1979 to April 2018.

The value of a real estate professional is much deeper than the average consumer sees on the surface of a problem - free transaction.