Sentences with phrase «introduced warming biases»

We present scientific evidence that any effect which reduces the slope of the vertical temperature profile within a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a warm bias, while any process that increases the magnitude of the slope of the vertical temperature profile in a stably stratified surface boundary layer will introduce a cool bias, remains a robust finding based on boundary layer dynamics.»

Having said that, we saw in Section 2 (Figures 12 & 13) that the highly urbanized stations are significantly affected by urbanization bias, with the bias introducing a warming bias of roughly 0.7 °C / century.

We found that this poor siting introduced a warming bias into U.S. temperature trends.

As we will see below, these siting biases seem to have also introduced a warming bias into the global warming estimates — at least for the U.S. region, which we studied.

Although the Watts, 2009 report speculated that the inadequate station siting of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network could have introduced a warming bias into the current U.S. temperature trends, it did not attempt to quantify what the net bias (if any) was.

So although the number of northerly stations was cut in the 80s / 90s, it doesn't introduce a warm bias, because of the way the averaging of stations is done by the climatologists who do actually know about these things.

It should introduce a warming bias.

Wouldn't this introduce a warming bias?

XBT's have been found to introduce a warming bias so when the warmer XBT data was combined with the later Argo data, the most recent trend showed exagerated cooling (more on that here).

When down adjustments are in older data than up adjustments the adjustments also introduce a warm bias, regardless of how many of each there are, and this is what has happened.

You have already decided that the surface record is tainted, that it has a warming bias due to whatever you are told may introduce a warming bias (such as AC exhausts or the people involved in making the record), and any and all evidence to the contrary is to be ignored.

You then attack your «fellow» «skeptics» who found a faster warming (and yes, their analysis may well be wrong), while failing to realise that this contradicts your own claim that having people like Hansen, Jones and Karl is likely to have introduced a warming bias in their reconstruction.

Not exact matches

The progressive increase in the ratio of intrinsically warmer (ships) to intrinsically cooler (buoys) measurements introduces a cooling bias in the trend for the combined data.

The expendable XBT devices were known to introduce a «warming bias» (Willis) and earlier data were even spottier.

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.

As a result of this extra urban warmth, if a weather station becomes urbanized, this introduces an artificial warming bias into the station's record, i.e., urbanization bias.

This would have introduced an artificial warming trend into the weather station's record, i.e., it would introduce an «urbanization bias».

[Interesting article, but the warmist bias of the writer is apparent] Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man - made global warming.

It seems that urbanization bias has introduced a regional warming of about 0.7 °C / century into the urban stations of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network.

This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long - term records.

That is, gradual urbanization has introduced an artificial warming bias into their weather records.

That means that looking at SST should be sufficient to follow any warming patterns and avoids introducing the land / sea ratio bias of NH.

I would have liked to see mention of uncertainty that inherent in examining short term data, whether the end points used introduces an element of bias, whether the «pause» is on a much higher plateau of warming than in the past, whether decadel cycles in ocean heat displacement may have interacted with the the known minimum levels of solar activity (not modelled) to cause this «pause».

A related criticism is that the decline in used station count has disproportionately removed stations from colder climates and thus introduced a false warming bias to the record.

Note in Watts Figure 16, by far the largest adjustments (in the warming direction) are for rural stations, which is to be expected if TOB is introducing a cool bias at those stations, as Karl discusses.

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.

Many of these biases introduce artificial warming trends into station records.

The Met Office held a briefing for the press to explain that the reduction in warming might be natural variation, or could be accounted for by a mixture of a decrease in stratospheric water vapour and the cooling bias introduced by new methodology.

Several studies have claimed that the warming bias introduced to global temperature estimates by urbanization bias is negligible.

However, urbanization bias is still a significant problem, which seems to have introduced an artificial warming trend into current estimates of U.S. temperature trends.

When asked to describe his «skepticism» about human - caused global warming, Watts went into a long discussion about his concerns that encroachment of human development near surface temperature stations has introduced a bias into the temperature record.

An oft - cited skeptic argument is that the decrease in available temperature measuring stations during the 1990s introduces an increased bias towards warming.

When the alignment point is a year with a warm anomaly in the observations, an artificial warm bias equal to the magnitude of the warm anomaly will be introduced into all the model data for all years following the year of the alignment.

Not true, he said it could introduce a warmer or colder bias.