Sentences with phrase «estimate the warming trend»

Not exact matches

They estimate that, across about 60 % of the global vegetated area, greening has buffered warming by about 14 %; for the remaining areas, which mostly include boreal zones, LAI trends have amplified the raise in air temperatures, leading to an additional warming of about 10 %.

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important

The new numbers will be used in models created by economists, environmentalists, and governments who use population estimates to predict pollution and global warming levels; prepare for epidemics; determine road, school, and other infrastructure requirements; and forecast worldwide economic trends.

Velders says his team came up with higher warming estimates than IPCC because their model accounts for trends that others don't, such as the faster - than expected adoption of HFCs driven by the Montreal Protocol, and an air - conditioning boom in the developing world.

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

Warming is most notable in winter, with satellite estimates of November - December temperatures at the North Pole showing a clear upward trend since 1990.

Second, since warming estimates vary as a function of the GMST data products chosen (Table 2), we propose to estimate trends on the annual averages of all five data products.

If only half the warming over 1976 - 2000 (linear trend 0.18 °C / decade) was indeed anthropogenic, and the IPCC AR5 best estimate of the change in anthropogenic forcing over that period (linear trend 0.33Wm - 2 / decade) is accurate, then the transient climate response (TCR) would be little over 1 °C.

These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern - induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low 4.

When estimates of their impact are removed (see this), the global warming trend becomes evident.

Although there is still some disagreement in the preliminary results (eg the description of polar ice caps), a lot of things appear to be quite robust as the climate models for instance indicate consistent patterns of surface warming and rainfall trends: the models tend to agree on a stronger warming in the Arctic and stronger precipitation changes in the Topics (see crude examples for the SRES A1b scenarios given in Figures 1 & 2; Note, the degrees of freedom varies with latitude, so that the uncertainty of these estimates are greater near the poles).

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer - estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by the first possible explanation offered by Santer et al. [2005].

Question, if the class 5 site show larger warming trends than the class 1 - 3 sites within 50 miles of that site what does that tell you about the wisdom of including a class 5 site in your grid estimate?

«Preliminary calculations of global temperature trends using estimates of temperatures in the Arctic indicate greater rates of warming than the 1998 - 2014 trend of 0.19 F per decade reported in this study.

For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80 % probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.

The models and observations both also indicate that the amplitude of interannual variability about these longer - term trends is quite large, making it foolhardy, at best, to try to estimate the slope of anthropogenic warming from a few years of data (as you seem to advocate).

If, for example, we were to create a piece-wise continuous trend keeping your own trend, we'd find the 0.17 C decadal warming trend from your starting point preceded by an estimated warming of equal magnitude in the combined 125 prior years (beginning at a time where only 1/4 of the present day coverage existed, thus placing the entire 125 year warming more or less within the margin of statistical insignificance).

That may mean that some of the highest estimates of future temperature rises, of more than 6C within several decades, are less likely, but it does not let the world off the hook — warming of more than 2C is still highly likely on current high emissions trends, and that would cause severe consequences around the world.

The main basis for the claim that there has been «unusual» global warming since the late 19th century is that the global temperature estimates constructed from weather station records suggest a warming trend of about 0.8 - 1.0 °C since about 1880.

If a substantial fraction of all the weather stations from around the world have been affected by urbanization bias, then this could have introduced an artificial warming trend into the «global temperature trend» estimates.

These estimated global temperature trends are the main basis for the claims that there has been «unusual global warming» since the Industrial Revolution.

DarkMath - «Of course you're going to see a warming trend of late if you base your temperature estimates on a climate model that has warming built into it.»

Surely, there's got to be some other global warming indicator that shows a long - term global warming trend...» Remarkably, aside from the weather station record estimates, almost all of the so - called «global warming indicators» are short - term estimates...

Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $ 5 billion per year, as of 2002.

Of course you're going to see a warming trend of late if you base your temperature estimates on a climate model that has warming built into it.

Surface warming / ocean warming: «A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets» «Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period» «Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus» «Assessing the impact of satellite - based observations in sea surface temperature trends»

«Here, the probability that the model - estimated GHG component of warming is greater than the entire observed trend (i.e., not just greater than «most» of the observed warming) is about 93 %.

The reanalysis systems have been underutilized for estimated temperature trends, warmest years, etc..

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

D) Consistent with UAH's history of conveniently under - estimating tropospheric warming, UAH reduced their tropospheric warming trend from version 5.6 to version 6 [10].

«Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period» «A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets» «Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «Early onset of industrial - era warming across the oceans and continentsWarming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «Early onset of industrial - era warming across the oceans and continentswarming across the oceans and continents»

Among the aspects of that variation that we can isolate are probably factors that have produced a general «global» warming trend since the deepest part of the «Little Ice Age», long before any «mainstream» estimate of anthropogenic changes to pCO2 would have been significant.

I mean, given the noise in the temperature data + assorted cyclical phenomena of various time scales, shouldn't someone have given a numerical estimate as to how long it would be before any warming trend could be detected with any statistical reliability?

They used a number of climate models and made a «moderate estimate» of future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are widely believed to be contributing to the recent warming trend of the Earth's climate.

It is not sufficient, because you also would have to show that the statistical trend estimate, which gives you Zero - or negative warming over the recent time period is not just something spurious due to the very noisy character of the limited data, masking a signal that you may see when your data sample is larger.

... we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~ 65 - year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08 deg C per decade since ~ 1980.

«In 1994, Nature magazine published a study of mine in which we estimated the underlying rate at which the world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider 1994)... The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979 - 1993 was +0.09 °C / decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurring according to estimates by climate model simulations.»

However, in our «Urbanization bias» papers (Summary here), we show that urbanization in the U.S. has also introduced a significant warming trend bias into the U.S. temperature estimates.

Trends over short periods in noisy data are very noisy so that leads to huge errorbars on trend estimates and makes silly claims such as «global warming stopped in 1997» blatant falsehoods.

These step - change adjustments introduce a warming trend to the estimated temperature trends.

The overview (and amended news release) now read: «Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts.»

The very first finding in the original news release for the ISPM (and the original version of ISPM overview) contains the following statement: «Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts.»

The top panel shows the «global warming» trends of several of the global temperature estimates, and the bottom panel shows the global increase in urban population.

The new analysis reveals that global trends in recent decades are higher than reported in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, and the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.

How much cooling would you estimate occurred in the sites that exhibited a cooling trend, if the average of all sites is +.65 C and the 2/3 of sites that showed a warming trend were on average between +1 - 2C?

The estimated temperatures produce a much greater warming trend then the actual temperature measurements.

Or, using a very simplified example, a calculated (estimated) linear global warming trend, of say 1.50 °C / century, is not statistically - significant if the error bars are at ± 1.55 °C.

In Wu et al. (2007) we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~ 65 - year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former [secular warming] to be about 0.08 °C per decade since ~ 1980.

«The reality of urban warming on local and small regional scales is not questioed by this work; it is the impact of urban warming on estimates of global and large regional trends that is shown to be small.»