Sentences with phrase «whether global mean»

The point isn't whether the global mean temperature is going up and so is CO2 content.

While reading of Jules May and Andrew Collins's bet on whether global mean temperature would exceed that of 2015 within...

Not exact matches

Meanwhile, in 2009 Ontario courts approved the Imax class - action suit and ruled it would be tried as a global class, meaning any investor who bought shares, whether on the TSX or Nasdaq, can be included as a plaintiff.

In fact, most hackers are equal - opportunity intruders, meaning they scan the Internet for any available security loophole, whether it's at a global financial institution, a midsized manufacturer, a local retailer, or a home - based business.

Yet deciding what it means to act justly in particular situations (whether it's a case of affirmative action or the huge global inequalities in living standards) is highly controversial.

«Whether that means bringing learning opportunities to the fingertips of our students, opening the doors of global commerce to our small businesses, or just getting news and weather updates before workers head in for the day, broadband access has become an important part of our lives.

«Given the current climate — I mean, political situation — in Washington, I'm wondering whether highlighting [clean energy] is something we still want to do,» board member G. P. (Bud) Peterson asked today during the board's review of the next edition of Science & Engineering Indicators, a biennial compendium of global trends in science and technology.

It is not whether UHI is discounted or not; the question is what effect that has on the the Global mean temp, and regardless of what McKitrick says, it is not a practical amount.

The model has been confirmed for the global market, which means we will be receiving it — although we're unsure of whether or not it'll be in limited numbers as per the previous model.

Under the direction of Mazda's global design director, Laurens van den Acker, a challenge was given to the design team to invent a novel means of registering motion in vehicles whether they're moving or standing still.

With consumers spending more money online, global electronic payment firms such as Mastercard and PayPal (PYPL) have a «great business model that has high margins, high returns on capital and as consumers change their shopping preferences, whether by channel or by category, they're still spending with the same means.

It leads me to wonder whether there is some global depressing market effect for ETFs that mean you shouldn't even expect to get the index rate of return.

A big factor in those oscillations is ENSO — whether there is a a warm El Niño event, or a cool La Niña event makes an appreciable difference in the global mean anomalies — about 0.1 to 0.2 ºC for significant events.

What we mean by premature is that there is no evidence in the literature to support a claim that global warming has resulted in demonstrable effects on hurricane impacts, whether they are measured in terms of economics or otherwise.

whether one is talking about «global mean» or «sigma», one is talking summary statistics for a distribution.

The global mean aerosol radiative forcing caused by the ship emissions ranges from -12.5 to -23 mW / m ^ 2, depending on whether the mixing between black carbon and sulfate is included in the model.

For instance, whether the 2004 global mean temperature anomaly places it in the top 4 or bottom 4 years is a fact regardless of any political spin people might care to place on it.

But since we seem to have determined that global mean temperatures do tend to track global mean forcings, the interesting science is now in determining the regional scale at which we can still make useful statements — and whether a forcing is «first order» or not will depend quite crucially on what the scale is.

That would be a much more fair bet as to whether the mean average global temperature is going up or going down.

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7 - 8 degrees F (1.5 - 4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun.

[Response I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but if you feel that you can only assess whether temperatures are changing by looking at 30 - year averages, consider the following: Global mean temperature anomalies (in degrees C, relative to 1961 - 90 reference period): 1885 - 1914: -0.35; 1915 - 1944: -0.18; 1945 - 1974: -0.07; 1975 - 2004: +0.21.

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

by Chris White Daily Caller The ExxonMobil probes are meant to determine whether the company decided to continue pulling oil out of the ground despite acknowledging global warming is a growing issue, the leader of the investigation told reporters Friday.

I'd be particularly interested in your view on the question whether, if sulphate concentrations have been as low as A1T projects for 2030 during the past decade, you would have expected global mean temperatures to have risen more than they have.

There will be deep philosophical and ethical differences on whether we have the right to coerce billions of people for an unclear likelihood of preventing a 2 - 4 C increase in global mean surface temperatures by 2100.

The most statistics can tell us at present is that there does appear to be a genuine warming trend in figure A. Whether this trend is the effect of greenhouse gas emissions or of a natural fluctuation due to some as - yet - undiscovered mechanism can not be determined from an analysis of the global mean temperature alone.

In the quote above, Trenberth seems to assume that the question in contention is whether there is global warming or not, meaning that the old null was that «there is no global warming», and that the new null would be «there is global warming».

Until you can all agree on whether changes in soil moisture are due to lower solar, or due to higher CO2, use solely sea surface temperatures for global mean surface T change.

That is no mean feat because climate — whether it is local, regional or global — depends on a host of variables (defined) that do not lend themselves easily to computer simulation.

About your many interesting links to and quotes from the dynamic systems literature the most pertinent thing you wrote is that they do not (at least not yet) illuminate the discussion of whether increasing CO2 will increase or decrease or be independent of global mean temperature.

What this means is that the question of whether or not urban areas are representative of the world's land area is completely separate from this question: That speaks instead to the question of whether an urban trend can be legitimately interpreted as a global trend.

You state that what is at question is not the actuality of temperature increase (by which I assume you mean global average temperature), but the question of whether UHI effects have been entangled in the temperature records, and to what extent.

This external control is demonstrated by ensembles of model simulations with identical forcings (whether anthropogenic or natural) whose members exhibit very similar simulations of global mean temperature on multi-decadal time scales (e.g., Stott et al., 2000; Broccoli et al., 2003; Meehl et al., 2004).

The complexity of the climate system and the uncertainty around our understanding of its mechanisms and the feedback interactions of it's components, along with the uncertainty around our measurements of its activity mean that at this stage we can not be sure global surface temperature will trend up or down, or even whether surface temperature is the most useful metric for the throughput of energy in the climate system.

And even if they corrected their methods; which they can't do, because it would take all the money on the planet to buy enough thermometers; it is all for naught, since there is no physical cause and effect connection between a local surface or near surface Temperature measurement, and the energy flows that are occurring at that location at that time; so mean global temperature tells us nothing about whether the earth is gaining or losing total energy.

CEO Rupert Murdoch that the media conglomerate is joining the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the big question here at DeSmogBlog is whether this means Fox News will end its peddling in global warming junk science.

It wasn't clear to me whether or not you were talking about «global» or «Adelaide» in your remark about «the hottest 12 month period ever» (by which I assume you mean since we had any sort of instrument record — say 100 years or so).

The question that has not been at all supported by any scientific means is whether or not mankind has had a global affect on climate.

Although there is at present no means by which to tell whether this particular storm was due to human induced global warming, the devastation it has caused is consistent with the projections generated by climate change models that suggest such storms will become more severe as the world warms up.

In the mean time, I shall continue to visit your site as I am trying to get my mind «up to speed» on the details of «global warming» predictions — and do some bush league predictions of my own (as I enjoy «computer modeling» real systems, whether I am good at it or not).

What, then, is the consensus among the monthly global mean surface or lower - troposphere datasets about whether the climate is warming «faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago»?

On the question of whether observed changes in climate can be attributed to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, Bolin noted that «The global mean temperature has increased by 0.3 - 0.6 degrees C since the late 19th century, and about 0.3 degrees over the last 40 years.»

eadler2 Whether or not there is a pause, the present trend in the global mean surface temperture is not what was expected from a steadily rising concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, demonstrating that the models failed to include some important natural effects.

Whether or not this means that global warming is or isn't happening is not the point.

(That is, if we simply held global mean temperature constant by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, I have no idea whether that would be enough to halt Antarctic ice loss — probably not, in fact almost certainly not, though it would mean less ice sheet loss than would occur if we didn't do it.»

If there is an analysis that uses the global mean temperatures, you definitely want to know whether the original conclusions are robust to updates in the data.

Note that this result is not directly a test of model fidelity, but rather of linearity; what is converging here is the model's representations of air - sea interaction leading to global mean surface temperature anomalies, not whether the models have the ability to capture the magnitude or even the spatial patterns of observed RASST variability.

Here we analyse global - mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone.

One key point is whether the simple method you've used here provides a reliable estimate of ECS, which is defined as the long - term change in global mean temperature for a doubling of the CO2 concentration, once the temperature has reached equilibrium.

One interesting science question is whether a response to changes in the GHG concentration mainly will involve a global mean temperature change dT s / dt, or if the response leads to changes in the hydrological cycle turn - around rate η z (t).