Sentences with phrase «true average warming»

the «true average warming» is always greater that the measurements.

Not exact matches

If temperatures are at or below freezing (which is true even during this warmer - than - average winter in Colorado), that moisture will precipitate as snow, not rain.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

If we are lucky, and it seems that we have been for two years so far, it will remain cold enough so the average person begins to doubt the coming global warming catastrophe predictions — thank you Mr. Sun and Mrs. Cosmic Rays, for riling up the leftist so they reveal their true bad character — with harsh character attacks on scientists who do not deserve them.

Suitable indexes are as good and some indexes probably better for following the warming than the true average temperature at some near surface altitude like 2 m.

So if temperature data since 1997 is on average significantly higher (to give wriggle room) than +0.26 C then the claim there's been no warming since 1997 can not be true.

Well, ANU, snarky though you may be, you raise a nominally interesting point; the problem, however, is that the amounts are anomalies; so the 90's are on average a certain amount above the average of the base period; now to compare the increase in anomalies in the noughties, which are higher than the nineties and say this is evidence of progressive warming, hottest ever, or whatever is the current alarmist catch - cry, ignores the fact that the true measure of the warming is not the absolute anomalies but their difference; that is the amounts for the noughties should have the amounts for the nineties subtracted from them and then compared with the nineties after they have the eighties subtracted from them.

The fact that ARGO sampling pretty much misses out one of the fastest warming regions in the world while having no such deficiencies in regions of cooling means any analysis using only ARGO data will produce trends lower than the true global average, unless the analysis somehow accounts for this bias.

Even if the myths are true, and CO2 does have some small warming effect, that warmth will only bring us closer to the Holocene average, opening farmland in higher latitude as the continued growth of human population utilises that enhanced atmospheric CO2 to feed itself.

From about 1980 to 1998, Hansen's predictions seemed to be the one thing the warmers had going for them: as long as the post-CRU-processed global average was seen to increase, they looked like solid scientists, because their predictions seemed to be coming true.

If the 1900 to 2000 mean is the true global temperature average, then there has been about 0.4 C of warming per century or 0.04 C per decade.

It's true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above average.

Since 2010 was as only as hot as 2005, the highest world average temperature in recent years, it would be true to say that average world temperatures have not increased during the past 5 years despite the minimal attempts by the major powers to deal with climate warming (or should I say climate change?).

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth's surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office * Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation * Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data * After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST * New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic * We will all be left with a slightly - warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.