Sentences with phrase «talking about global temperature»

I know this is a cherry pick from the emails and Trenberth is not talking about global temperature, but don't know where to find the blog post where I read about this.

But he did not understand that we are talking about global temperatures.

Citing the GISTEMP global anomally as he does, that should indicate that he is talking about global temperatures, but it turns out he is not.

Titley passed on the opportunity — which Mr. Takano offered up twice — and instead talked about global temperature trends and the probability of getting heads if you flip a coin 36 times.

IIRC, Trenberth is talking about global temperatures, but he is saying that the energy that we know is arriving is not accounted for in his famous energy balance paper.

Not exact matches

Scientific studies of global warming talk about the variation of the earths temperature over millions of years — oops.

He didn't provide any clues about the substance of the talk or if he urged Trump to reconsider the role that humans have in raising global temperatures.

Specificaly, we were talking about a regional warming event in the context of an otherwise unremarkable month for «Global» temperatures.

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

CC: NO, we are talking about how the anthropogenic addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will effect global temperatures and hence climate.

If you're talking about global mean temperature I would advise you to compare the projections of the IPCC to the actual measurements of GISS as well as HadCRUT, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU measured data.

Oerlemans's reconstruction of global temperatures (largely from mid latitude glaciers) is entirely independent of the much talked about temperature records from other paleoclimate proxy data (e.g. Moberg and others, Mann and others, Crowley and others).

We are thus not talking about changes primarily in global mean temperature (these are small in the model results shown above).

I should add too that I was not allowed at work to study or talk about trends in frequency and magnitude of floods or trends in temperatures and precipitation, due to the «highly political and controversial subject of global warming».

Global warming is talking about the mean global annual surface temperGlobal warming is talking about the mean global annual surface temperglobal annual surface temperature.

The Nature study is talking about changes associated with ocean circulation even while CO2, and the global imbalance, and global temperature, is increasing.

[Response: Note that the numbers we are talking about are the global average temperature anomaly (not absolute temperature).

Why do the folks talking about ice sheet melt, talk about «global temperature», when what affects the ice melt / ice dynamics is the temperature adjacent to the ice?

Neil confronted them with the claim that the Antarctic ice is getting thicker, and asked them to explain how this was compatible with global warming; he also talked about mean temperatures and the trend in the same since 1998 (see the programme from about 7 minutes in, and also from about 9m 15s in).

Also, the term «global pattern of warming» implies regional temperature change, which pushes the climate system response discussion to a much higher level of complexity than when simply talking about changes in global - mean climate.

I suspect that it looked OK in your view or you didn't check; «the paper i cited talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models can not account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future.

This is what most of us think of when we talk about «Global Warming»; that it is changes in the air temperature!

Assume the accuracy of each thermometer is + / - 5 % (this is climate science, we can assume lots of things), you also have to factor in at least the time of day, day of the year, and depth of the water measured (we are after all talking about global average temperatures).

I am going to talk about how changes with local temperature, pikas, whitebark park pines, and snowpack, may be an indication global climate change is impacting Crater Lake.»

We talk about temperatures in high latitude areas, like the Arctic, because, as a general rule, high latitude areas are much more sensitive to human stress than the global average.

I am still waiting for word on what the global temperature anomaly for the month was, but I suspect it will be fairly close to normal, which means that on average the temperature of the Earth will come in at ~ 12.0 °C which is 4 °C colder than it will be in 6 months from now, but because of how they talk about temperature, I will be the only one pointing out the difference between the actual temperature and the anomaly temperature.

This article by Brian Kahn really highlights the manifest idiocy of talking about a «pause» or «hiatus» in global temperature increases:

With all the stern talk about global warming and widespread concern over climate change, you would think that we humans would have a propensity for cooler temperatures.

Finally, the Paris Agreement has some nice language in the preamble talking about an aspirational goal of holding the increase of global temperature well below 2, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase 1.5

On the other hand, I'm not talking about smaller eruptions» effects on the global temperature.

Finally, the Paris Agreement has some nice language in the preamble talking about an aspirational goal of holding the increase of global temperature well below 2, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase 1.5 °C.

But one thing you may want to consider is whether they are actually talking about temperature as a local quantity that does not vary with altitude or instead as a global quantity that has no relationship to altitude.

There is even a slightly finer distinction that is almost always skipped: when it comes to the land record, we're talking about global surface air temperature.

When we say «global warming» what we're actually talking about here are the air temperatures which, as one of the authors told me, is a relatively «fickle» measure of climate change.

Worse, this talk you suggest about «how much» and «warming pause» legitimizes both the impossible «greenhouse effect» and the nonsensical «global temperature» calculations, both being the very foundation of the climate alarm.

I understand the difference between «temperature» and «heat», but aren't we talking about global «warming» (i.e. an increase in temperature) as opposed to global «delta - heat»?

If you're talking about a change in the rate, trend of warming, or even just say that «warming has slowed» in the context of the general discussion about global temperature records, you are implying something about a change in trend.

I'm not talking about higher temperatures per se, but a reorganization of the global weather system.

Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were higher than average, so it looks like the world hasn't gotten much warmer since then, and talk about the global warming «pause.»

NASA corrects the temperature record for the US, making it clearer that 1934 was the hottest year on record - for the US - and skeptics talk about it as if it was the global temperature.

I looked under the heading global temperatures list of contents and «Estimates of recent global air temperature change» and it shows graphically exactly what your talking about.

I on the contrary am explicitly talking about research on natural variability that is «primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change».

If we're talking dishonesty, then WUWT and their followers need to confess to the dishonesty they have been perpetrating about the pause in global temperature increases.

Global warming works when talking about temperatures.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature, the 35 percent increase we have already seen in CO2 concentrations represents about three - quarters of the total...

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Kyoto treaty, even if fully implemented, would only save us about a tenth of a degree of future temperature rise many decades from now.

There's a puny ~ 0.1 C global temperature adjustment difference that we're talking about.

This runaway effect that manmade climate change believers talk about comes from the hypothesis that climate change feedback mechanisms are positive and the small warming we have experienced will lead to drastic increases in global temperature.

Probably the most talked about, and measured aspect to climate is «global average temperature.»