Sentences with phrase «than the actual temperature»

These thermometers can have a different rate of being 4 degrees lower than the actual temperature.

According to a new study co-authored by Allen and published Thursday in Nature Climate Change, the eventual peak level of warming that the planet will see from greenhouse gas emissions is going up at 2 percent per year, much faster than actual temperatures are increasing.

OOps, I forgot, deducing temperature from a noisy thing like wind speed is more accurate than an actual temperature measurement.

This is apparently what happened a few weeks ago when some prominent alarmist modelers decided to scale back their temperature forecasts, probably because the forecasts were continuing to be much higher than actual temperatures.

However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1 °F higher than the actual temperatures.

xi) Distribution of energy within the entire system is more significant for climate (which is limited to the troposphere) than the actual temperature of the entire Earth.

The «necessity» for plotting temperature anomalies rather than the actual temperatures is evidenced from the figure below (from Mauritzen et al., see this previous post)

Not exact matches

With temperatures rising 1.5 F in the 20th century, being off by 0.7 degrees suggests that actual warming since pre-industrial times might be more than 50 percent greater than assumed, around 2.2 F.

«Actual temperatures could be much larger than assumed — we simply do not know.»

In a study published in the actual volume of Nature Communications, geo - and climate researchers at the Alfred - Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar - and Marine Research (AWI) show that, in the course of our planet's history, summertime sea ice was to be found in the central Arctic in periods characterised by higher global temperatures — but less CO2 — than today.

For the dwarf planet Pluto, however, the predicted temperature based on the composition of its atmosphere was much higher than actual measurements taken by NASA's New Horizons spacecraft in 2015.

«Human - perceived temperature is rising faster than actual air temperature.»

When comparing probiotics and prebiotics in supplement form, probiotics aren't always able to survive the harsh, acidic temperatures of stomach acid — but prebiotics are, which might make them more helpful to repopulate the body's stores of good bacteria than an actual probiotic supplement.

Ok, I'm not that bad, I just don't like it when the RealFeel is 20 degrees colder than then actual temperature — like right now.

That would be like a doctor paying more attention to a temperature reading than to the patient's actual physical health.

«But as we get nearer to the ability to add through technology the ability to portray more expression and things such as temperature it will soon be easier to reach out through games online than actual interaction between human beings.

In my opinion, it is only by willfully ignoring the misfit in their model at 1994 - 2004 that one would suggest that actual temperatures in 2005 - 2015 should be predicted to be colder than 1994 - 2004.

But the intermediate water temperature (IWT 500 - 900M) seems to have no lag and a lot more volatility in terms of actual temperature change than the surface temperatures.

Other readers here know better than I, but if we presume that a 3 ˚C per doubling of CO2 is correct for climate sensitivity then the current level of 395 ppm translates into an actual temperature commitment right now of 1.41 ˚C.

The actual prevailing view of the paleoclimate research community that emerged during the early 1990s, when long - term proxy data became more widely available and it was possible to synthesize them into estimates of large - scale temperature changes in past centuries, was that the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere varied by significantly less than 1 degree C in previous centuries (i.e., the variations in past centuries were small compared to the observed 20th century warming).

It looks at though the lagged temperature knows the future track of the forcing rather than responding to the actual forcing at the time.

Three of the four global average temperatures indeed are decreasing in their trends (although the actual global mean temperatures are still warmer than the previous decades).

In saying Monckton was more right than wrong, I was referring to the comparison of the IPCC scenarios for temperature anomalies compared to actual results over recent years.

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

b. Even the Stefan - Boltzmann Temperature for Mars, 209K vs Mars» actual 214K, is more accurate than your model, despite its fudge factors!!

Re # 12 Eric, from what Bickmore wrote Monckton is closer to being right in saying that the IPCC's own temperature scenarios are not predictive, than the IPCC is in getting almost all of their temperature scenarios close to actual results.

So, is the problem (with my attempt at extending the GISP2) to modern time, that GISP2 is showing a different temperature than what the AWS a the summit is producing, perhaps the actual surface (or should that be the firn) temperature vs. 2m above?

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.

The actual temperatures are likely to be even higher than the «official» forecasts and the «official» daily high readings reported.

If you've ever wondered why you're buried in snow but keep hearing about how we've experienced «officially, the second warmest year on record» (when we're not being told it could be the warmest year on record), know that «officially» relates to the pronouncements of officials, and «official temperature records» have been «systematically «adjusted» to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.»

While it's true BEST reproduced a far more accurate representation of the observations than any other, and BEST indicated strong signs that other collections were falling further and further behind the actual temperature trend, we know BEST has some drawbacks: they've presented (to date, that I know of) land only, and that dataset stopped quite some time ago.

Climate science is the only science of which I'm aware (and my graduate training is in atmospheric science) where the observed data are consistently altered to conform to the theory, rather than the theory revised to conform to actual temperature observations and data.

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.

The supposed water vapor amplification mechanism will simply accelerate the water cycle slightly and produce little actual temperature rise, certainly less than the 1 C rise touted as a no - feedback case.

So the IPCC have formalized the claim that, were it not for Chinese air pollution, the global temperature rise would be higher than it has been, justifying more actual sensitivity to CO2 than we appear to observe.

Why do you think that those proxy temperatures are of better quality than actual measurements?

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 high emissivity of CO2 in the IR actually contributes to our radiative equilibrium temperature being another 20K or more lower than that but I'll wait until somebody is interested in implementing the computations in CoSy or puts a table, not a graph, of an actual measured mean spectrum in my lap.

This means that the calculated global temperature trends are showing a lot more warming than the actual global temperature trends.

It is more likely a result of temperature being a better measure of ablation than precipitation of actual accumulation.

Actually, even though the line may look synchronized, the «Conclusions» section of the linked PDF specifically explains that by selectively discarding the data, the CRU made pre-1950's temperatures lower than actual, and post-mid-1990's temperatures higher than actual - thus producing an intentional skewing of the trendline.

But, once again, this may not matter in the case of the climate sensitivity since that is dealing with differences in forcings / temperatures rather than the actual values.

Given the fact the the bulk of the energy in the TOA imbalance is getting stored in the ocean, yet temperature anomalies over the ocean are less than over the land, for the above stated reasons, the global combined land and ocean (that is, air over the ocean) temperature anomalies actually tend to greatly understate to a the actual effects of the anthropogenic caused TOA anomaly.

They have all been shown to be very inaccurate... the actual observed temperatures are a lot less than he predicted would happen.

I also forgot to add that getting some real feel for the actual energy imbalance going on in the Earth system seems a better approach to talking about climate sensitivity than focusing on what we've now all recgonized are some very fickle tropospheric temperatures.

Tom, If you accept that the pauses, previously occurring and the one at the present, are part of long period cycles whose long term average is related to the actual long term trend of temperature (rather than the far steeper slope of rise from just 1980 to 1999), you are admitting that the rise (from whatever cause) has a slope of closer to 0.4 C per century than the super inflated values of 2C to 6C per century claimed by the models and supporters of CAGW.

I would be more impressed if only the temperature DIFFERENCE between the eastern and western pacific was input, rather than actual SST values.

The problem is that we are looking for the average of the actual global temperature changes for Earth where some areas warm more rapidly than others and some areas cool.

The last time you did it, you claimed the actual value for 1997 was ~.12 cooler than the temperature record actually showed.

On the other hand, my model predicts the actual temperatures for each variance with an accuracy within less than a tenth of a degree C. of actuality.