However, temperature anomalies are much better correlated over large distances, and this is why the global mean
temperature calculations use local anomalies not absolute temperatures.
Not exact matches
Previous studies of how such a scheme would lower Earth's
temperature used back - of - the - envelope
calculations.
The full 2015 surface
temperature data set and the complete methodology
used to make the
temperature calculation are available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
This raw data is analyzed
using an algorithm that takes into account the varied spacing of
temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the
calculation.
Dr. Benestad states: «In their formula for the
calculation of the sun - related
temperature change, the long - term changes are determined by Zeq, while their «climate transfer sensitivity to slow secular solar variations» (ZS4) is only
used to correct for a time - lag.
I
used was the surface
temperature responses from histAll --(histGHG + histNatural) to obtain the response to aerosols + ozone + land -
use and derive the enhancement of the response for that case relative to WMGHGs that I called E.
Calculation of TCR based on histAll in a model is approximately the same as calculating the sum of responses to histGHG, histNat, and histInhomogeneous where the latter includes the factor E.
Comparison with the modeled
temperature response in histAll is inconsistent without accounting for stratospheric water, land -
use, solar, etc, some of which are poorly characterized (hence I did not make
use of a
calculation like this).
In their formula for the
calculation of the sun - related
temperature change, the long - term changes are determined by Zeq, while their «climate transfer sensitivity to slow secular solar variations» (ZS4) is only
used to correct for a time - lag.
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no
calculations to determine an average surface
temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are
used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
These had
used other data to make
temperature calculations for the same period.
Conditions such as pH,
temperature and ionic strength are
used in the
calculation.
Chemistry professor Balakrishnan Naduvalath is
using complex theoretical
calculations to explore how molecules behave at
temperatures close to absolute zero and under conditions important in astrophysics.
Finally we describe all forcings employed in our
calculations of global
temperature and the method
used to simulate global
temperature.
The new study
used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface
temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Doesn't
using a «baseline for anomaly
calculation» «equal to the time span being analyzed» decrease REAL extreme weather event probabilities much the same way as
using a sliding baseline minimizes the slope of
temperature increase?
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no
calculations to determine an average surface
temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are
used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
I can't help but notice that the St. Vincents Gulf
temperature now is 22 C, including something like a 3 C positive anomaly, whereas the normal winter air
temperature in Adelaide may be something like 12 C.
Using «cooling tower»
calculations, I think it should be possible to heat up the air by contacting it with 22 C sea water raining through it to a
temperature of at least 18 C.
We therefore repeated the
calculation excluding this data point,
using the 1910 — 2009 data instead, to see whether the
temperature data prior to 2010 provide a reason to anticipate a new heat record.With a thus revised nonlinear trend, the expected number of heat records in the last decade reduces to 0.47, which implies a 78 % probability -LSB-(0.47 − 0.105) ∕ 0.47] that a new Moscow record is due to the warming trend.
This letter is to seek the involvement of the World Meteorological Society (WMO) in advancing world climate monitoring by a significant improvement in the method of gathering the
temperature measurements
used to calculate global average
temperature at the Earth's surface so that the precision of this
calculation can be increased.
These
calculations are made assuming that each year's
temperature is an independent draw from a stable distribution, and so their extreme unlikelihood is more of a statement about the model
used, rather than the natural vs. anthropogenic question.
«Preliminary
calculations of global
temperature trends
using estimates of
temperatures in the Arctic indicate greater rates of warming than the 1998 - 2014 trend of 0.19 F per decade reported in this study.
Half of your paper
using an incorrect expectation (based on the McKitricks» inadvertently mistaken
calculation) and the other half doesn't address the issue at all (since no real physical process in the PBL can cause a bias in the surface
temperature records).
I did the
calculations exactly by
using the GISS simulation and the HadCRUT3 global
temperature data: this is the result.
If that is correct or even partially correct, the difference in
temperature could be even greater (
using the same
calculations above but tonto's uptake
calculation, we top out at 440 with maybe 1C warming vs 4C = a difference of 3C).
Those adjusted
temperatures are then
used like measured
temperatures in ongoing
calculations.
At our suggestion Ed carried out some more work on his initial
calculations and sourced figures from CDIAC which gave a somewhat higher figure than the ones he originally
used in the communication above and which consequently altered the
temperature reductions that could be achieved through aggressive mitigation and which are detailed in Ed's article below.
Trude Storelvmo of Yale University and her colleagues did not
use climate models to find out the answer, but they based their
calculations on
temperature and solar radiation records taken from more than thousands of global measurement sites over the course of 46 years.
The system can provide an estimate for that station's location on that day, but it is not
used in any
calculation for any other
temperature.
Global -
temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate - date procedures have been
used from other national data because the
calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial
calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
The project received funding from the Research Council of Norway's NORKLIMA programme.The researchers succeeded in reducing uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global
temperature increase as a result of human - induced emissions of greenhouse gases.The project researchers were able to carry out their
calculations thanks to the free
use of the high - performance computing facility in Oslo under the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (Notur).
I note with interest your
calculation using GISTEMP data, but unless you are committing to the belief that the current low
temperatures relative to trend represent an actual reduction in the trend rather than the effects of transient features such as ENSO fluctuations,
using the actual
temperature value will lead to a poor estimate of the further evolution of the energy imbalance.
This raw data is analyzed
using methods that account for the distribution of
temperature stations around the globe and for urban heating effects that could skew the
calculations.
did have some debatable aspects to do with the
calculations and the lads quickly picked up my gaffe in saying the pre-1976 / GPCS
temperature data did have a downward trend overlooking the fact that M&Q
used data from 1951 not the whole data from the beginning of the La Nina period in 1942; even so, despite there being a slight upward trend from 1951 -1975 [the year before the GPCS], the average
temperature for this period is -0.194 C below the anomaly base period of 1961 - 1990; the average
temperature from 1981 — 2005 is +0.315 C above the base period average; the average in the period between 1976 — 1980, the period of the GPCS, is 29.2 C above the base period average; accusations of cherry picking and the artificiality of
using seperate regressions for the pre and post GPCS period were levied; a Chow Test needs to be done;
Thus he seems to be well aware that the relationship is always broken when the atmospheric
temperature differs from the surface
temperature (the size of this difference is given by the theory he is
using in his
calculations).
4) By interpreting the analyss of Bob Tisdale, the global sea surface
temperatures used by Endersbee in his
calculations have been controlled by warming of the sea surface waters outside the tropical sea surface i.e. mainly by the warming of the sea surface waters of higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are.
This does seem to impose some reasonable limits
using the term «optimal» in regard to the current BEST
calculations but in fairness I think the improvement in «global
temperature -LRB-?)»
For the purpose of the exercise, I therefore
used the relationship of Callendar's Figure 2 to estimate GLB
temperature, recognizing that the parameters of this figure would only be an approximation to Callendar's GLB
calculation.
Further, the
temperature calculations are independently confirmed by four different sets of weather balloons that measure atmospheric
temperatures using thermometers.
Using a more sophisticated
temperature calculation reduces this difference.
HadCRUT omits missing regions from its
calculations of global mean
temperature trends; NASA extrapolates
temperatures for those areas
using data from their edges.
All blue columns representing
temperature trends
use at least 100 months of
temperature measurements for the trend
calculations (
using less than 100 can produce extreme volatility for calculated trends - the less than 100 datapoint
calculations are very interesting but can be quite misleading).
Temperatures used in this
calculation come from NASA's Modern Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Application (MERRA)[Rienecker et al., 2011].
Indeed there are more stations, but I was talking only about the stations
used by GISS for their
temperature and anomaly
calculations.
This effective radiative forcing is the climate sensitivity
calculation that incorporates
temperature responses in the troposphere and land surface that are rapid compared to the ocean
temperature response,
using fixed - sea surface
temperature experiments.
Spectral analysis, unless properly understood may lead to very misleading conclusions, here are shown four essential things one needs to be aware of all the time: On the other hand there are again unnoticeable data curiosities, this graph shows an unusual configuration within one of the top five
temperature data sets
used by the climate scientists in their
calculations, predictions and computer models.
Note: NOAA U.S. dataset (converted to Celsius)
used for
temperature calculations from this site.
A study on 1981 to 1995 weather data (Pretlove and Oreszczyn, 1998) indicated that
temperature and solar radiation in the London area (UK) had changed significantly over the period, and climatic data
used for energy design
calculations could lead to 17 % inaccuracies in building energy -
use estimates.
Finally we describe all forcings employed in our
calculations of global
temperature and the method
used to simulate global
temperature.
I'm not accepting the
calculation for TSI; I think it's too high, but I'm
using Dana's TSI formula for the
temperature change in this period, but my own delta TSI.
The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse conjecture is that they «explain» the surface
temperature of 288K
using Stefan - Boltzmann
calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere.