Sentences with phrase «why mean global temperature»

Given that there is still much we do not know about climate change — including why mean global temperature has been flat for the past ten years — undermining confidence in climate science can (further) undermine its ability to inform policy.

Not exact matches

However, temperature anomalies are much better correlated over large distances, and this is why the global mean temperature calculations use local anomalies not absolute temperatures.

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

Large variability reduces the number of new records — which is why the satellite series of global mean temperature have fewer expected records than the surface data, despite showing practically the same global warming trend: they have more short - term variability.

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.

That is why we should expect the observed global temperature to bounce around quite dynamically in that 95 % (even going outside it sometimes) and not cling closely to the mean.

Why is this approach not much used for estimating global mean surface temperature change?

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)?

For a start, based on what we know about the forcings and the observed evolution of global mean temperature, why would one expect climate change to be a linear warming since 1880 in Moscow?

If the CRF were so important (and the cloud response near - instantaneous) why do we not see more pronounced ~ 11 - year variations in the global mean temperature?

While the definition of a forcing may appear a little arbitrary, the reason why radiative forcing is used is because it (conveniently) gives quite good predictions of what happens in models to the global mean temperature once the climate system has fully responded to the change.

Why don't you explain to us in your words with specific references, not «check the satellite records», what the global mean average temperature was in 1988, how it moved in the 20 years hence, and what it is today.

why don't you compare the IPCC 2001 global temperature rise predictions to current global means (year averages or rolling averages — whatever you want).

I never undestood why people admitted so easily that global temperature was a way to measure energy gain of the climate system... you have to assume first that the climate system is a very stable machine first... By saying «we can measure yet» it means their assumption were..

Since then there are a number of papers published on why the warming was statistically insignificant including a recent one by Richardson et al. 2016 which tries to explain that the models were projecting a global tas (temperature air surface) but the actual observations are a combination of tas (land) and SST oceans, meaning projected warming shouldn't be as much as projected.

Hansen» rationalization of why, (as he states) «the five - year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade», is interesting background information, but, of course, does not change the observed fact that there is this standstill, which he acknowledges.

If increase in CO2 concentration had effect on the global mean temperature, why is its trend constant since record begun in 1850 as shown?

Besides I strongly oppose (like R.Pielke and many others) the idea that the «global time average of the surface temperature» has any physical meaning or is a valid metrics to measure the «climate» and I can't see the beginning of a valid reason why it should correlate to any relevant dynamical parameter.

The fact this is seemingly not fully recognized — or here integrated — by Curry goes to the same reason Curry does not recognize why the so called «pause» is a fiction, why the «slowing» of the «rate» of increase in average ambient global land and ocean surface air temperatures over a shorter term period from the larger spike beyond the longer term mean of the 90s is also meaningless in terms of the basic issue, and why the average ambient increase in global air temperatures over such a short term is by far the least important empirical indicia of the issue.

WebHubTelescope, could you please explain to me why the global mean temperature touches but NEVER exceeds the upper global mean temperature for long in the last 160 years of data?

, This is basically the reason why global mean surface temperature is being recognized as a poor metric.

Overall, the research «provides another example of why defining «dangerous» climate change in terms of global mean temperature targets does not give the full picture», says Prof Mat Collins, joint Met Office chair in climate change at the University of Exeter, who wasn't involved in the study.

@ - «This is why homeostasis is the key feature of global absolute surface temperatures, which have fluctuated by little more than 1 % either side of the long - run mean in the past few tens of thousands of years.

May be that is why there has not been any shift in the global mean temperature pattern for the last 130 years!

The reason why climatologists do not believe this is the whole story is because an increase in thermohaline circulation would warm only the north Atlantic, but it would cool the south Atlantic and would have hardly any effect on the Pacific or the global mean temperature.

The case for the strength of the AMOC playing an important role in setting the rate of heat uptake by the oceans and the degree of disequilibrium in global mean surface temperature is made in particular by Winton et al 2014 and Kostov et al 2013, who describe two rather different perspectives on why you should expect a relationship between these two quantities.

And why compute the radiative balance using the mean global temperature when what (approximately) has an influence is the fourth root of the average fourth power of temperatures.

... then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0 - 2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade, a period when ARGO floats have measured subsurface temperatures, providing reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans?

I think this could be another reason why the derivation of the IPCC's formula for radiative forcing from CO2 offered by Bindidon is not valid, since that derivation involves the assumption that our estimate of the global mean surface temperature can be converted directly into an estimate of global mean surface radiance by a simple application of the Stefan - Boltzman formula, which you have pointed out is not necessarily true.

I want to address the question «Why worry about a 1oC rise (in global mean surface temperature)?»