Sentences with phrase «decades of cooling which»

Those previously beneficial rising temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the 1930s were followed by about three decades of cooling which began in the 1940s.

Not exact matches

The timing is unassailably cool, showing up after the lost decade, right when there's some danger of losing the current decade, and helping that rich, storied franchise get back to their championship ways is absolutely gross, which is how you can also tell how special it is.

We've known for decades that all supercell thunderstorms have a gust front, which is the boundary between the moist, warm air that is flowing into the storm and the generally cooler air coming down out of the storm.

The study also provides new evidence for just how sensitive glaciers are to temperature, showing that they responded to past abrupt cooling and warming periods, some of which might have lasted only decades.

Periods of volcanism can cool the climate (as with the 1991 Pinatubo eruption), methane emissions from increased biological activity can warm the climate, and slight changes in solar output and orbital variations can all have climate effects which are much shorter in duration than the ice age cycles, ranging from less than a decade to a thousand years in duration (the Younger Dryas).

However, various independent measurements of solar activity all show closer agreement to the PMOD reconstruction which indicates the sun has been showing a cooling trend over the last few decades.

Best known in feature films for his acting work in Cool Runnings (1993), he also became a television star during the second half of the decade on Cosby, the sitcom starring Bill Cosby, which ran from 1996 until 2000.

But in other ways, Cool Hand Luke is vaguer about what it stands for — it's the beginning of a decade - long run of films in which being an individualist is valorized in the absence of any particular information about exactly what kind of an individualist a character is, or why.

There are several types of moss commonly found on the market: I carry basic whole moss (a standard of horticulture decor for decades), frog moss, which can come back to full life when hydrated and can flourish given slowly dripping water and cooler temperatures, and my favorite, New Zealand sphagnum moss.

Already, many sixties artists have taken on, for me, this classical stature — Dan Flavin, Carl Andre, Don Judd, Robert Morris, Kenneth Noland, among others — which feels more like past than present...» Nevertheless, many of the assumptions which were first propounded about the style — or what was commonly claimed, the non-style — of Minimalism (née Cool Art, The Third Stream, Post Geometric Structures, ABC Art, Object Sculpture, Specific Objects, Primary Structures, or Art of the Real) have remained unchallenged for over a decade.

Included in the lineup are the «meat pieces» he began exhibiting in 1964 — uncannily realistic wax depictions of hunks of flesh, dotted with flies and encased in Plexiglas, which were his «hot» answer to the art world's prevalent trend of «cool» Minimalism, and which anticipated the works of Robert Gober and Damien Hirst by decades.

I read a post on one of the lists that I haunt, in which the poster touts the idea that earth will be cooling for a few decades now, because the sun is wobbling off the barycenter and will be off by the maximum amount (about 2 solar radii) for some of that time.

A quick search turns up this partially relevant paper, which notes the influence of warming of currents in the North Atlantic, beginning in the early part of the 20th century, and which reminds us that the 60s were the most marked «cool» decade of the post-war period:

These earlier years, mainly El Nino years, average 11.5 years earlier than the projected recent hottest four, perhaps suggesting a rough calculation of the recent rate of AGW of at +0.16 ºC / decade, this of course the warming trend of peak years through the so - called «hiatus» years and being «peak years», it is a rate which assumes cooler years will be coming along soon.

Of course, in the real world, the 1880's where exceptionaly cold, peak 20th century warmth was in the 1990's (which in turn were cooler than the first decade of the 21st century), and the 1970's and following decades were characterised by an ongoing rise in temperatureOf course, in the real world, the 1880's where exceptionaly cold, peak 20th century warmth was in the 1990's (which in turn were cooler than the first decade of the 21st century), and the 1970's and following decades were characterised by an ongoing rise in temperatureof the 21st century), and the 1970's and following decades were characterised by an ongoing rise in temperatures.

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after «the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,» which «is essentially the same value we determined in 1994... using only 15 years of data.»

Basically, they are shit - scared that this «CO2 fertilization» effect (mentioned with scarcely concealed fear and loathing in the IPCC Group 1 2007 report — not that you sceptical lot would have noticed) is the «smoking gun» of the last decade which has started delivering a flat lining in warming and more recently even cooling.

Variations in solar activity also trace the cooling trend of the 1960's and 1970's and the warming trend of the past decades (which CO2 does NOT).

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference — an annual gathering of the so - called «scientific consensus» on man - made climate change — Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering «one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.»

So if CO2 slows down the rate at which the «earth» cools... why has it not slowed down the cooling of the atmosphere... for the last decade and a half?

In this new paper they write: «The most striking features in the reconstruction are the warm temperatures from ∼ 1050 to ∼ 1300 AD compared to the preceding and following centuries, the persistent cooler temperatures from ∼ 1400 to ∼ 1800 AD, and the subsequent rise to warmer temperatures which eventually seem to exceed in the last decades of the 20th century the range of past variation.

So if CO2 slows down the rate at which the «earth» cools (I think you are too general here but I don't want to overreact to a figure of speach), why has it not slowed down the cooling of the atmosphere (where it optically resides) for the last decade and a half?

Desler, Alexander, and Timlin (1996) said: «A prominent decade - long perturbation in climate occurred during the time period [1970 — 1991] in which surface waters cooled by 1 °C in the central and western North Pacific and warmed by about the same amount along the west coast of North America from late 1976 to 1988.»

Over the past decade, aerosol emissions (which cause cooling by blocking sunlight) have risen, solar activity has been low, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events (which also cause short - term surface cooling), and heat has accumulated in the deep oceans.

The 25 D - O events during the last glacial, where temperatures rose and fell by 5 to 10 degrees C (10 - 15 degrees C for Greenland) within a span of decades that were «explained by internal variability of the climate system alone ``, deemed global in scale, and they occurred without any changes in CO2 concentrations, which stayed steady at about 180 ppm throughout the warming and cooling.

Between this email (22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a «trick» to «hide the decline» for the preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 0942777075.txt, «trick» is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the L.A. [Dr Mann] in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa's curve had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation...)

The pattern of warming that we have observed, in which warming has occurred in the lower portions of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling has occurred at higher levels (the stratosphere), is consistent with how greenhouse gases work — and inconsistent with other factors that can affect the global temperature over many decades, like changes in the sun's energy.

Anyway with El Niño fading away and possibly a new El Nina with other natural cooing factors coming in to play there is a good chance of another decade or more of «Pausing» or cooling in global temperatures which is itself a stupid concept as it cools and heats in different places of the planet dependent on the local climate conditions an average is meaningless — you really need to dream up some more dire alarmist nonsense to keep your show on the road.

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).

Still, U.S. temperatures between 1910 through the mid-1940s were warmer than now, and then cooled again for about three decades following World War II industrialization which added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The only difference is that the attribution will be 90 % towards clouds and water vapour and since humans are in no way responsible for these factors AGW will be just about natural global warming which ended over a decade ago and replaced by the global cooling which started in 2002 and will likely continue nuntil at least the end of solar cycle 25 around 2032

According to the HadCRUT3 surface record, which is the one preferred by IPCC: — 1990s warmed at a rate of 0.18 C per decade — 2000s cooled at a rate of 0.06 C per decade http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2011/trend

True, true and «peaked» may be more accurate given what some predict which is from 3 to 7 more decades of global cooling and for all anyone knows a descent into another ice age by the end of the century.

The cooling of the Arctic since 1950 - 60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world's oceans, but also in the Norwegian - East Greenland Sea....

The year 2007 marked the fifth year of the global cooling trend that started in 2002 which is still continuing today and is expected to continue for at least the next two decades until the end of solar cycle 25.

Which, apparently, was enough to overcome his Global cooling panicy forecasts of a decade or so before.

According to AGW theory and IPCC claims, warming should be steadily accelerating... Actually this is formally falsified by observations showing quite a constant back - ground trend of +0.05 °C per decade, on top of which cooling and warming periods are alternating.

The statement, «This fits within the context of a long - term warming trend both here and around the globe,» Crouch said is still misleading or plain wrong as the trend of US and Canadian annual temperatures has been declining for nearly two decades (17 years) or since 1998, North America which is cooling, not warming represents 16 % of global land areas

Although you don't show the dates for those data points, what you did was pick a temperature index which happens to conveniently start with 1979, the frigid bottom of a four - decade - long cooling trend in the northern hemisphere.

On that basis I think we will see cooling for a couple of decades due to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has just begun then at least one more 20 to 30 year phase of natural warming before we start the true decline as the cooler thermohaline waters from the Little Ice Age come back to the surface.

My estimate is that between ~ 80 % to 120 % of the observed trend in recent decades is human - forced — i.e. which allows for 0.1 to 0.2 degC / dec either way for internal variability — natural forcings are a slight cooling factor on these timescales so that would imply a higher attribution to human causes.

Using the T2 or TMT channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al. of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through January 2017) a trend of +0.140 °C / decade.

So, in the absence of MBH, my understanding has reverted to what it was before 1998, which is what I learned at school, and was the universal consensus for far longer than my lifetime: that climate warms and cools in long slow cycles, of decades and centuries in length.

One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

Noting that the Southern Hemisphere was mostly ocean, which would tend to take up heat and delay the rise of atmospheric temperature in the region, they had warned that people «may still be misled... in the decade A.D. 2000 - 2010» by cool weather there.