Sentences with phrase «about recent warming trends»

Observant readers will have noticed a renewed assault upon the meteorological station data that underpin some conclusions about recent warming trends.

Not exact matches

While Yahtse Glacier may be ignoring climate signals for now, Larsen and his colleagues aren't about to discount the impact of recent warming trends entirely.

On # 72: Gavin, isn't the real point that the magnitude of individual year deviations from the (rising) trend says nothing about the «exceptionality of recent warming»?

I've seen other comments that point out the variability of the data points, in terms of uncertainties, and also the recent study about removing temporary negative and positive influences on temperature, showing a definite continuing warming trend.

From the beginning, many of the complaints about Mann's work were more about how it was appropriated by others than the research itself; the first paper of his identifying a «hockey stick» pattern to temperatures over the last millennium, in 1999, was laced with caveats in describing the distinct sharp recent warming trend.

From time to time, there is discussion about whether the recent warming trend is due just to chance.

The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 °C (about 0.33 °F) warmer than the 30 - year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 °C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.

Fan We have had this discussion about borehole several times and as a result i had several email discussions with the author.they confirm a global warming trend since 1600 closely following cet.The warming trend is not a recent one.

Seems that the most recent warming trend that begins just past the max trough of the Atlantic Multi-decadal lines up with the warming of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation during two of the main multi-centenial warm surges, the first one from about 1910 - 1940 and the 2nd stronger one from about 1970 - 2000.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

«Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates» «Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data» «Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures» «Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends» «Reconciling warming trends» «Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled» «Reconciling controversies about the «global warming hiatus»»

Thus, IMHO, Nasa resorts to the cumbersome and confusing «warmest years» phrasing to imply that it's making a statement about the latter question (trend during past 10 - 12 years) when it's really only making a statement about the former question (difference between recent temps and 100 - 130 years ago).

This surface warming would suggest a temperature trend of about 1º C per century, which is less than that predicted by the computer simulations, but it is unlikely that even this recent trend in surface warming is primarily attributable to human - made greenhouse gases....

We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we «do something about it».

That conclusion is based not on climate models or recent trends in forest fires, but rather on records of forest fires that occurred more than a millennium ago, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a period when global temperatures were comparable to what they are today, and about half a degree warmer (on the Celsius scale) than they had been for several centuries prior.

Its about whether, if the recent trend combines AMO and global warming signals, interpretation of this as if it were an attribution study of global warming may overstate the pure effect of global warming.

None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

For one of many good demonstrations that the recent slowdown (which, importantly, is «slow» only relative to immediately preceding «fast» warming — that's a hint for you) in no way is evidence against the continuing long term trend, see climate statistician Tamino's recent post «Slowdown Skeptic,» and «It's the Trend, Stupid,» and «Is Earth's Temperature About to Soar?»