Sentences with phrase «same warming trend»

Or should the satellite series show the same warming trend as surface datasets, if they're accurate?

GISS for Springfield has the exact same warming trend as BEST for Springfield, and I figured out that Brandon Shollenberger likely messed up his GISS chart and somehow eliminated that warming trend.

All of these larger natural pathways for emitting low - C13 carbon into the atmosphere have been considerably accelerated by this same warming trend.

But both agencies» calculations show the same warming trends.

Not exact matches

Looking ahead, he wants see if the same trends hold up in other regions, starting with the southeast of the United States, where people may be more acclimatized to warmer temperatures.

(While NOAA's temperatures can vary slightly from NASA's because of the different methods the agencies use for processing data, their numbers are generally very close and both show the same clear warming trend.)

The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.

Even though these are the same areas that tend to have above average temperatures during El Niño winters, this pattern is also consistent with the long - term trend we are seeing with global warming.

This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long - term global surface air warming trend of 0.16 °C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to «cherrypick» short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short - term noise in the data (blue steps).

«These days we wouldn't need the same atmospheric conditions to match that heat because of the background warming trend,» King said.

* However, the same panel then concluded that «the warming trend in global - mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century.

These trends are derived from exactly the same data as those used in the original figure, that was used to argue that the global warming had stopped — by two professors and a statistician, the very same who performed curve - fitting and removed data not fitting their conclusion.

One should note that plotting the same data over the their entire length (e.g. from the starting date of the satellites in 1979) will make global warming trends more visible (see figure below).

As far as I know, the 2 main sources of satellite data for temperatures in the lower troposphere are UAH and RSS, and they vastly differ in their trends in the tropical troposphere, with RSS's trend being twice as warming as the UAH trend, although they show the same trends in the remaining troposphere, resulting in a Global difference of only 0.035 C / d trend.

The basic picture is the same — 2008 is a cool anomaly on the back of a warming trend and is very analogous to similar cool anomalies that occur in the models at random intervals.

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.

In other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large - scale cooling of the LIA should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcing).

If you subtract the calculated expected physical warming based on the current attribution analysis would the climate system be expected to produce the same number of heat records as are now occurring on trend?

Strong short - term variability would mean that even in a warming trend there would be more cool years than for the same trend with less variability, and vice-versa for cooling trends.

The same issue has played out in discussions of hurricane trends in a warming world.

But then you didn't read the graphs the same for the present warming trend, you cherry picked a starting point that wasn't the lowest.

Neil confronted them with the claim that the Antarctic ice is getting thicker, and asked them to explain how this was compatible with global warming; he also talked about mean temperatures and the trend in the same since 1998 (see the programme from about 7 minutes in, and also from about 9m 15s in).

At the same time, the same groups (Pielke, Landsea, etc.) claim that the hurricane trend data is too questionable to support an increasing trend in intensity, and that no links can be made to global warming — Pielke, June 2005.

If you do the same for 31 year averages, 32 year averages, 33 year averages, etc., on on through at least 70 year averages, you continue to find an indisputable trend of climate warming — even if you dismiss the land data as flawed because of the use of daily extremes rather than a more robust indication of the daily mean.

Although the rate of warming of surface air and lower troposphere temperatures appear to have slowed over the past few years, the same could be said at any virtually any point in time by cherrypicking short - term noise and ignoring the long - term trend (Figure 2).

Yet that dataset, which, like all the surface datasets, was recently adjusted to deliver the global warming that measurements did not show, now indicates a warming trend over those same eight years at a rate equivalent to more than 1.5 degrees / century.

The very next year the same magazine reported that «The world may be inching into a prolonged warming trend that is the direct result of burning more and more fossil fuels...» The ice - age theories, said the article, «are being convincingly opposed by growing evidence of human impact.»

And lets be clear here according to the doomsday cult preachers the warming trend did last until 2000 and continues today at or about the same rate that was happening in 1989... according to the preachers...

By all appearances the entire warming trend displayed in the fully homogenized data for the United States rests on findings in just two papers written by the same researcher.

There is no spurious warming due to the chosen practice, «As expected, the global averaged SSTA trends between 1901 and 2012 (refer to Table 2) are the same whether buoy SSTs are adjusted to ship SSTs or the reverse.»

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing — no they aren't Warming of the planet since 1880 — same trend since LIA 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 — has little effect Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect — you don't appear to understand them, and neither do modellers, which is why their predictions have been so wrong

More recently, papers published by respected scientists from the same university, differed on a key element of climate change science, but the study conducted by IPCC members suggesting acceleration of a trend that would impact global warming received the most attention.

This dubious methodology concluded that the warming trend for 2000 to 2014 was exactly the same as it was for 1950 to 1999: «There is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.»

At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa.

«The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.»

The animation below shows how the same temperature data that is used to determine the long - term global warming trend can be used inappropriately to «cherrypick» short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are chosen to mislead.

If he did it the standard way, then he simply took the data and calculated the probability of obtaining the same trend, or a more extreme one, if there was no warming - i.e. if temperatures really did follow a random walk.

I could totally take a linear trend plus a sine wave and claim that all the warming happened in that little segment where both are rising at the same time.

Christy is correct to note that the model average warming trend (0.23 °C / decade for 1978 - 2011) is a bit higher than observations (0.17 °C / decade over the same timeframe), but that is because over the past decade virtually every natural influence on global temperatures has acted in the cooling direction (i.e. an extended solar minimum, rising aerosols emissions, and increased heat storage in the deep oceans).

Based on the same flawed reasoning to conclude an absence of a trend from the non-detectability of a trend in the limited data sample from 1997 to the end of 1994, I could claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» for that 16 - year period.

Also, using the same cherry picking approach as used by «skeptics» for the recent time period, based on which they claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» because of lacking statistical significance of a warming trend, I even could claim a «pause» in global warming from 1979 to at least the end of 1997.

The AMO will also provide a warming nudge to global temperatures, and at the same time the AMO itself is showing a 150 year long warming trend.

PS There are individual locations today, which are not warming, despite the general warming trend; no doubt this was the same during the MWP.

In a separate trend analysis of winter temperatures (Oct - Apr), we found that temperatures in the months of March and April in the last 25 years, 1988 — 2012, were significantly warmer by 2 and 1 degrees Celsius (3.5 and 2 degrees Fahrenheit), respectively, than temperatures for the same months in the 25 years when the experiments were conducted, 1958 — 1982 (see File S4 for more detailed information).

B. if anything averaging over the pole UNDERESTIMATES the actual warming TREND C. you get roughly the same answer if you do nt average over missing grids.

As I've explained before, my argument is that the trend from 1970 - 2012 shows more warming than the trend from 1970 - 1997 which indicates warming has occurred since 1997, falsifying the claim that warming stopped in 1997 which is based on the same method.

As Andy discussed, BEST also demonstrated that rural temperature stations show essentially the same, and in fact even a slightly larger warming trend as urban and more poorly - sited stations (Figure 2).

Absolute temperatures of poor stations may be higher and less accurate, but the overall global warming trend is the same, and the Berkeley Earth analysis concludes that there is not any undue bias from including poor stations in the survey.»

The warming from 1910 - 1940 is associated with natural variability (its attribution is still disputed), and the trend is same magnitude as from 1970 - present (which is attributed mostly to anthropogenic factors); Phil Jones has actually stated this publicly.

There are always such cases irrespectively of the presence of overall warming trend as under such conditions same places cool and some warm.