Sentences with phrase «when global average surface temperature»

Those suggest that the concentration of CO2 last approached 400 ppm about 3 to 5 million years ago, a period when global average surface temperature is estimated to have been about 2 to 3.5 °C higher than in the pre-industrial period.

The last time in Earth history when the global average surface temperature was as warm as the IPCC projects for 2100 in its mid-range scenarios, there was very little polar ice and sea level would have been roughly 70 meters (over 200 feet) higher than at present.

Not exact matches

Jacob (and many, many others) seem to think that if model A, when run from 1900 to present, predicts the relatively flat, global average surface temperature record over the past decade, is a better match to reality than model B which does not.

If one postulates that the global average surface temperature tracks the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, possibly with some delay, then when the CO2 concentration continues to rise monotonically but the global average surface temperature shows fluctuations as a function of time with changes in slope (periods wherein it decreases), then you must throw the postulate away.

When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures.

Secondly, unlike the global average surface temperature trend, which has a lag with respect to radiative forcing, there is no such lag when heat content is measured in Joules (see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-247.pdf).

'' If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

This seems to misunderstand the climate system lag time: «If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.

When he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilWhen he presented his misleading graph, when he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he said 97 % of climate scientists agree, (knowing full well the actual situation that the number is bogus and misleading,) when he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he mentions adjustments to satellite data but not to surface temperatures with major past cooling and absurd derived precision to.005 * C, when he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibilwhen he defends precision in surface global averages but ignores major estimates of temps and krigging in Arctic, Africa, Asia and oceans or Antarctica, he forfeits credibility.

Back in 2009, by analysing the data, I found that the global average sea surface temperature, the SST, stays fairly constant when the Sun is averaging around 40 sunspots per month.

During that same period, average annual rainfall in New South Wales declined by 3.6 inches (92 millimeters).3 Scientists think the decline in autumn rainfall in southeast Australia since the late 1950s may be partly due to increases in heat - trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.3, 14 Major bushfires over southeast Australia are linked to the positive phase of an ocean cycle called the «Indian Ocean Dipole» — when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average in the western Indian Ocean, likely in response to global warming.15, 16

When international delegates meet in Paris next year to negotiate a new global climate agreement, they'll be aiming to keep global average surface temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrial levels.

Sorry it doesn't pass the back of the envelope calculations especially when Dr Spencer's global average temperature at near surface have recently fallen to 2008 levels.

The slowdown or «hiatus» in warming refers to the period since 2001, when despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, Earth's global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady, warming by only around 0.1 C.

As just one example; «How we can know an average global sea surface temperature back to 1850 when so much of the world was unexplored let alone its oceans measured» should be just one example that should make scientists question whether the models they build are actually using reliable data, or whether they think they already know the answer and therefore just use data that supports it, no matter its doubtful provenance.

If the different methods are not analysing different definitions then why do values of global average surface temperature (GASTA) from decades ago alter when the method is changed from month to month: which is the right determination any of the ones before a change or any of those after it?

extreme heat; or b) a nuclear winter; or most likely c) extreme heat followed by a nuclear winter — Joe Neubarth writes: «The program is running and we are rushing to an abrupt end... Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is going up to 17ºC in the next few years — this will kill @ 7 billion people... When about 6 billion people have died from global heating, they will use nuclear weapons to refreeze the Arctic...&Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) is going up to 17ºC in the next few years — this will kill @ 7 billion people... When about 6 billion people have died from global heating, they will use nuclear weapons to refreeze the Arctic...&global heating, they will use nuclear weapons to refreeze the Arctic...»

Not that anyone's going to take any notice of me, but I think it unwise to use pre-industrial global temperature as a baseline when the global - average surface temperature seems to have varied by several tenths of a degC during the half - millenium or so preceding the industrial era.

When you try to consider the effect at the surface, a global average temperature change no longer means much.