«We conclude that extreme climatic events are key drivers of biodiversity patterns and that the frequency and intensity of such episodes have major implications for predictive models of species distribution and ecosystem structure, which are largely based on
gradual warming trends.»
ie, a look at the actual temperature in the central england data set from the 1600's, would give a null hypothesis for any significant observable human AGW signature (ie a low % of AGW) as there only appear to be
a gradual warming trend from a period known as the «little ice age».
When you have
a gradual warming trend and add to that an exceptionally strong ENSO you get this illusion.
John Philips (13:43:35) «Trends» have become virtually meaningless lately, since the word has been so variably used, but try this: Eyeball the temperature curve as correlated to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and you will see an excellent relationship with the cyclic cooling and warming phase of the PDO overlaid on
a gradual warming trend emerging from the Little Ice Age.
And thank goodness we have been in
a gradual warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s.
Not exact matches
Incidentally, as I see it, your reconstruction of Manns data showing the 15th century to be
warmer than now is even more damming than Manns original construct, as it indicates a
gradual decline in global temperatures until 1850, before human influence reversed that
trend.
«Wavelet analysis shows that this relative urban
warming trend was primarily manifested in the form of multi - decadal and interseasonal cycles that are likely attributable to
gradual increased winter heating in Ottawa (heat island effects) associated with population growth.
A significant northward
trend (reduction of ice) in the winter - maximum ice edge is apparent, however, and appears to be caused by the
gradual warming of sea - surface temperatures in the region (paper available on this if you want it).
Increasing CO2 causes a
gradual long - term
warming trend which is smaller than the short - term variations.
Over the 5 long term, this
warming conforms to a complex
trend that can be simplified as a monotonic curve, but the actual pathway is steplike... this rules out
gradual warming, either in situ in the atmosphere or as
gradual release from the ocean, in favour of a more abrupt process of storage and release.
Combine the satellite
trend with the surface observations and the umpteen non-temperature based records that reflect temperature change (from glaciers to phenology to lake freeze dates to snow - cover extent in spring & fall to sea level rise to stratospheric temps) and the evidence for recent
gradual warming is, well, unequivocal.
It's true that there's no change in the
warming trend, but, as Annan says in the comments, high - end sensitivities should show a
gradual acceleration.
Because 20 - year
trends can be substantially influenced by just a few single or multi-year «
warm» or «cold» events, they are not necessarily representative of the true response of the climate system to the more
gradual changes in atmospheric composition that are taking place in response to human activities.
This is beyond well understood and only Edim, Latimer, and many of their colleague skeptics can't figure out that the ripple does not extend to the overall upward
trend apart from a second - order effect due to the
gradual global
warming signal.
They both show a dramatic swing out of the last Ice age to
warm temps (
warmer than now) and then swings in temps both up and down in a periodic fashion with each upward swing in temps topping off less
warm than the last one, meaning the overall
trend has been
gradual cooling since the emergence to
warm temps after the last ice age.
And then there is the underlying
warming trend (0.041 C per decade), which some attribute to a
gradual recovery from the LIA.