Sentences with phrase «when mean global temperatures»

Not exact matches

If this rapid warming continues, it could mean the end of the so - called slowdown — the period over the past decade or so when global surface temperatures increased less rapidly than before.

Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74 °C ± 0.18 °C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906 — 2005).

Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling.

That study found seas rose 1.6 meters (5 feet) per century «when the global mean temperature was 2 °C higher than today,» a rather mild version of where we are headed in the second half of this century.

Our modelled values are consistent with current rates of Antarctic ice loss and sea - level rise, and imply that accelerated mass loss from marine - based portions of Antarctic ice sheets may ensue when an increase in global mean air temperature of only 1.4 - 2.0 deg.

Now, when we know the the global mean temperature for 2016, it's even more obvious.

This can be as simple as assuming an estimate of the global mean surface temperature anomaly is truly global when it in fact has large gaps in regions that are behaving anomalously.

I particularly enjoyed the slides that, when combined (1) provided an overview of hotter and cooler CO2 molecules as it relates to how they are seen from outer space and from profile — because this will make it easier for me to explain this process to others; (2) walked through the volcanic and solar activity vs assigning importance to CO2 changes — because this another way to help make it clearer, too, but in another way; (3) discussed CO2 induced warming and ocean rise vs different choices we might make — because this helps point out why every day's delay matters; and (4) showed Figure 1 from William Nordhaus» «Strategies for Control of Carbon Dioxide» and then super-imposed upon that the global mean temperature in colors showing pre-paper and post-paper periods — because this helps to show just how far back it was possible to make reasoned projections without the aid of a more nuanced and modern understanding.

What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I'll refer to as an «episode,» shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur.

re Gavin @ 223 I know what the mean global temperature is (actually, I don't, see below) but the question was why is this a meaningful metric for looking at changes over time, when you could get the same global mean from very different distributions of temperature (eg increase the poles, decrease the tropics) which would have very different interpretations of energy balance (at least if I am right that humidity matters)?

Transient climate sensitivity: The global mean surface - air temperature achieved when atmospheric CO2 concentrations achieve a doubling over pre-industrial CO2 levels increasing at the assumed rate of one percent per year, compounded.

Is it any mystery that during World War II global mean temperatures reached a peak of fever heat, just when daylight Savings Time was once again widely implemented (running * continuously * from Feb. 2, 1942 to 30 September 1945 in the United States, for example)?

Its a fact that mean global temperature has risen no more than about 0.5 degC in the past 27 yrs — as you know, almost identical to the rise between 1910 and 1945, when CO2 emissions are accepted to have been two small to influence, and there's certainly no indication of it «accelerating».

And without going into all remarks made by Lindzen: when he concludes that global mean temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties he appears to be in good company (Phil Jones in the BBC interview, Susan Solomon in her Nature article earlier this year).

I sincerely hope that you are not serious in maintaining the following: The peak warming is linearly proportional to the cumulative carbon emitted It doesn't matter much how rapidly the carbon is emitted The warming you get when you stop emitting carbon is what you are stuck with for the next thousand years The climate recovers only slightly over the next ten thousand years At the mid-range of IPCC climate sensitivity, a trillion tonnes cumulative carbon gives you about 2C global mean warming above the pre-industrial temperature.

The main result is that the global mean temperatures (including short term dips as well as the recent rise) are actually well modelled when you include as many of the forcings as you can.

RE 78: «Its a fact that mean global temperature has risen no more than about 0.5 degC in the past 27 yrs — as you know, almost identical to the rise between 1910 and 1945, when CO2 emissions are accepted to have been two small to influence, and there's certainly no indication of it «accelerating».»

The latest record for global and annual mean was set 1998, but it may also be slightly different when looking at local temperatures and on a monthly basis.

But think about what happens when we try and estimate the absolute global mean temperature for, say, 2016.

At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions.

Also, the term «global pattern of warming» implies regional temperature change, which pushes the climate system response discussion to a much higher level of complexity than when simply talking about changes in global - mean climate.

The energy flow diagrams of Trenberth et al and Stephens et al show 3 mechanisms by which a warming Earth surface can warm the troposphere and restore radiative balance: it is not reasonable to assert a priori that two of them can't matter in calculating the global mean temperature after a doubling of CO2 concentration, when even a little study shows that all of them will be affected.

They show a rising global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties when the satellites (both UAH and RSS), GISTEMP and NCDC all show a horizontal global mean from 1979 to 1997.

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

When you remove the oscillations from the global mean temperature, you get improved correlation between the secular GMST and sea level rise as shown = > http://bit.ly/KBBlN9

There is another period of 18 years, from 1979 to 1997, when global mean temperature was constant while ENSO oscillations ruled.

That now means, within the last three years, when global sea surface temperatures have been at their highest, we have seen the strongest hurricane globally, the strongest hurricane in the northern hemisphere, the strongest hurricane in the southern hemisphere, and the strongest storms in both the Pacific and the open Atlantic, with Irma.

This was the most recent occasion when global mean temperatures rose rapidly for a few years...»

When scientists in the 1960s - 70s compiled data to build their global average temperature series they used state averages of monthly mean temperatures from weather stations around the world.

To explain the climate you need to do more than manufacture correlations between TSI and a metric (Global temperature INDEX) Especially when that metric has no physical meaning.

It was only when «global warming» stopped that he and others started saying global mean (surface) temperatures weren't actually a measure of global warming.

Claims that global temperatures are not rising are laughable; all the more so when the statement is that warming doesn't mean it's warming.

When the earth's temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines.

Once such an IPCC exposition of the assumptions, complications and uncertainties of climate models was constructed and made public, it would immediately have to lead, in my view, to more questions from the informed public such as what does calculating a mean global temperature change mean to individuals who have to deal with local conditions and not a global average and what are the assumptions, complications and uncertainties that the models contain when it comes to determining the detrimental and beneficial effects of a «global» warming in localized areas of the globe.

-- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures — This means that the «pause» in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

Circles correspond to years when the warming threshold is first exceeded and squares correspond to years when the global mean temperature has stabilised.

The steady increase in global temperatures, including average temperatures in Australia, means that even when rainfall is at or near the historical average, conditions are drier than before because evaporation rates are higher.

This means that the «pause» in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1976 to 1986

Well it doesn't bloody help when scientists themselves (hello Kosaka & Xie) use «global warming» interchangeably with «global mean surface temperature.»

Does George E Smith not overstate the case when he criticises the use of global mean temperature?

Because temperatures in different regions do not vary in sync, when taking a global average they will regress towards the mean.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

The 1976 divide is the date of a widely acknowledged «climate shift» (e.g. Trenberth, 1990) and seems to mark a time (see Chapter 9) when global mean temperature began a discernable upward trend that has been at least partly attributed to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (see the TAR; IPCC 2001).

The first: «When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?»

A climate problem only exists when there is change in the climate (global mean temperature) pattern.

When imposing such orbital variations, climate models suggest different global - mean temperature responses.

If you believe, as I do, that radiative forcing tends to cause global mean temperature increase, then it is a contradiction to believe that future rates of warming will be higher when increases of radiative forcing are slower than they were in the past.

The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial / inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.

In this section, we present and briefly discuss the results obtained in the analysis of global mean temperature, when the «models are centered on the truth» paradigm is used instead of the «models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth» paradigm, which was used in Sect. 6.2.

The latest entrants to the hiatus argument are from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, known as ETH Zurich, and they define the years of global mean surface air temperatures between 1998 and 2012 as a «hiatus», a period when the Earth «seemed hardly to warm».