Sentences with phrase «temperature as the metric»

Perhaps rather than using temperatures as your metric, since you keep tripping up on that, you should use feet per day.

Although temperature is not a measurement of «heat» in the climate system, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), former directer James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming.

Falling back on the surface temperatures as the metric for the most societal relevant climate metric, even if its period of record is longer, is not a reason to focus on it, if it does not serve the purpose of telling us if humans are significantly altering these circulation patterns, and thus the weather and ocean conditions that matter the most in terms of the impacts on water resources, food, energy, human health and ecosystem function.

If you are going to use temperature as a metric, would be kinda nice to figure that out from the git go.

Not exact matches

As I live in the US, I was wondering when the book is released in the US are the measurements, temperatures in metric??

She discovered that, when grouped, fish are able to estimate subtle nuances, such as changes in water temperature, salinity or concentration and use such metrics to decide, together, on the best path.

His team measures surface temperature as opposed to the usual air temperature metric, two meters above.

Wet bulb globe temperature is the heat stress metric used by the International Organization for Standardization, and it has well - validated thresholds for when humans can safely work, giving it advantages over alternative metrics such as heat index, said study co-author Chao Li, a hydroclimatology scientist at the University of Victoria in Canada.

You can think of this almost like reverse engineering fire potential from metrological metrics, such as temperature and precipitation.

The Northwest Climate Toolbox currently has ten tools, or applications designed around a set of climate metrics such as temperature, precipitation, and more complex measures including the energy release component (we'll get to that last one in a bit).

For a long time now climatologists have been tracking the global average air temperature as a measure of planetary climate variability and trends, even though this metric reflects just a tiny fraction of Earth's net energy or heat content.

Finally, to revisit the question originally posed @ 203: Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

Assuming the IEO2011 Reference case of «1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy - related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035», and given that this case equates to following RCP8.5 until 2035 as previously demonstrated @ 408, what increase in average global surface temperature relative to pre-industrial would result by 2035?

I fully understand your desire to move on from the global mean temperature as the sole metric being considered (and I think that most of the community is moving in a similar direction), but for better or for worse, it is still, and will likely remain, an important measure.

While a global temperature metric for the near - surface tropospheric temperatures is awkward in that it does not account for changes in local climates, it is useful from the most important and broad perspective... as one more metric to indicate total energy flow in and out of the Earth system.

To have a 50 - 50 chance of staying beneath the maximum global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius (about 4 degrees Fahrenheit) announced as a target at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, global annual emissions by 2030 should stay beneath 30 billion metric tons.

«Although climate change and variability involves all aspects of the climate system [Pielke, 1998], the assessment of anthropogenically - forced climate change has focused on surface temperature as the primary metric [Mann and Jones, 2003; Soon et al., 2004].

There were other clear linkages to the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations in the discussions, for instance on: what period can be referred to as «pre-industrial,» how to describe the qualities of such metrics as Global Warming Potential and Global Temperature Potential, and how to address the implications of RCP scenarios in the context of staying below 2 °C of warming or a lower warming target.

Temperature was chosen as the metric to talk about.

The metric used by IPCC in all its reports for past and projected future «global warming» has been the «globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly» (as reported by HadCRUT3).

All these facts, combined with the fact that the actual measurement of near - surface temperature anomalies is only one small metric of Earth's overall energy imbalance, and so to focus on it at the exclusion of others which may be equally as important is a bit of a «look... squirrel!»

We have plotted most likely peak temperatures as a function of four different cumulative emission metrics: year 1750 — 2500 (figure 3a), year 1750 to the time at which peak warming occurs (figure 3b), year 1750 — 2100 (figure 3c) and year 1750 — 2200 (figure 3d).

As we have emphasized here (as have others, such as Hansen, Levitus, Barnett, Willis) a more meaningful metric than global average temperature to assess global warming is ocean heat content.&raquAs we have emphasized here (as have others, such as Hansen, Levitus, Barnett, Willis) a more meaningful metric than global average temperature to assess global warming is ocean heat content.&raquas have others, such as Hansen, Levitus, Barnett, Willis) a more meaningful metric than global average temperature to assess global warming is ocean heat content.&raquas Hansen, Levitus, Barnett, Willis) a more meaningful metric than global average temperature to assess global warming is ocean heat content.»

Hi Bart, Could I just point out that Ocean Heat Content, given that the oceans represent the largest thermal mass involved in the climate system by far, is the right metric to use as a bellweather for future surface temperature trends.

Moreover; a sensitivity metric expressed as degrees per W / m ^ 2 has a non linear 1 / T ^ 3 dependence as T (the temperature) increases.

Not at all surprising as the important climate metric isn't temperature, it's energy.

The temperature variability metric at each site was calculated as the standard deviation of the maximum monthly SST from 1985 — 2003, scaled such that the mean for the world's coral reefs is 1 °C [16].

Maximum temperature is a better metric (although as the appropriate metric to diagnose global warming, ocean heat content change should be used).

It is certainly useful to look at the total heat content anomaly (as best as it can be estimated), but the difficulties in assembling such a metric and extending it back in time more than a few decades preclude it from supplanting the surface temperatures in this respect.»

, This is basically the reason why global mean surface temperature is being recognized as a poor metric.

(The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.)

Is climate sensitivity a metric input into the computer models that have been used to predict future global average temperatures as a justification for CAGW policy initiatives.

Global - annual mean adjusted radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere is, in general, a reliable metric relating the effects of various climate perturbations to global mean surface temperature change as computed in general circulation models (GCMs).

-------- 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.

Since the memes of the IPCC have not shown any tendency to change in response to current short term movements in the global temperature metric, any longer term trend remains moot, as it should be expected, given the absence of testable hypotheses on natural variability.

As far as I have been able to understand the debate on «temperatures», we are using the wrong (or a less than scientific) metriAs far as I have been able to understand the debate on «temperatures», we are using the wrong (or a less than scientific) metrias I have been able to understand the debate on «temperatures», we are using the wrong (or a less than scientific) metric.

In addition to it's focus on temperature increase, the report also suggests the use of cumulative carbon emissions over time as a valuable metric for linking emissions to impacts.

Emission metrics such as Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) can be used to quantify and communicate the relative and absolute contributions to climate change of emissions of different substances, and of emissions from regions / countries or sources / sectors.

The public use of temperature rather than enthalpy when choosing a metric to explain climate change that has been exposed as problematic with the skeptics using the same methodology as the IPCC communicators to claim the warming has stopped, or that we are actually cooling.

A central conclusion of the report is that it is more effective to assess climate stabilization goals using global mean temperature change as a primary metric, rather than atmospheric concentration levels.

Some observers, prior to the change to metric units, recorded temperatures in whole degrees Fahrenheit, instead of recording to the nearest tenth of a degree, as specified in directions to observers.

Because of the sensitivity of the shelter level temperature to parameters and forcing, especially to uncertain turbulence parameterization in the SNBL, there should be caution about the use of minimum temperatures as a diagnostic global warming metric in either observations or models.»

I favour the «start afresh» possibility, perhaps using the new Berkeley temperature metric and Satellite measurements as the basis.

In terms of the long term surface temperature trends, the reason that they are receiving such attention is that they are used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming.

Lastly, there is a need to move beyond global mean surface temperature as the main metric for quantifying climate change.

I don't prefer one over the other as an intrinsic metric (they provide two different pieces of information), but I find the ocean heat content data to be a much less mature data set than the surface temperature data set.

A metric such as global temperature (or, better, global temperature anomaly) is a metric or figure of merit.

Furthermore, by homogenizing the entire ocean into a single metric, they miss important nuances of local and regional scale redox changes that might reflect the activity of climatic feedback processes, such as weathering, ocean circulation change, or temperature change.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature.

Considering Earth's average surface temperature as a reasonable metric (something more along the lines of total surface heat content is probably better, but average T is not a bad proxy for that), the standard systems theory analysis from the physical constraints implies that that average T is determined and constrained through a feedback process.