Sentences with phrase «larger warming trends»

This suggests to me that you're getting spatial smearing from other regions with larger warming trends.

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?

The large warming trend during the period is due to a regime shift in around 1988, which accounted for about 51 % of the regional warming.

Prof Curry said: «If we are currently in a plateau and possibly headed for cooling, then sometime in the middle of the century we would likely see another period with a large warming trend.»

Among all the main land based records (NOAA, GISSTEMP, HADCRUT4, C&W) and the two satellite records, over the duration of the pause, UAH shows the largest warming trend and RSS the lowest.

As Andy discussed, BEST also demonstrated that rural temperature stations show essentially the same, and in fact even a slightly larger warming trend as urban and more poorly - sited stations (Figure 2).

When Menne et al., 2010 compared the homogenized stations with good Surface Stations ratings to the ones with bad ratings, they found that they were nearly identical — in fact, the good stations showed a slightly larger warming trend.

For those unfamiliar with boundary layer meteorology, the reason for this is that minimum temperatures on calm nights should in fact show a larger warming trend than on windy nights (explained below), and not the identical trends reported by Parker.

Looks like higher latitude stations do show a significantly larger warming trend (0.28 C per decade vs 0.18 C per decade since 1960).

A further reading of my comment will also show that I made absolutely * no * comment about the larger warming trend outside of the evidence of the last decade, but * did * question the * man - made * component.

Most scientists consider it a blip in a much larger warming trend.

I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions: — There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)-- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)-- On the 20 yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years

Not exact matches

A team of researchers lead by Florida State University have found new evidence that permafrost thawing is releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via plants, which could accelerate warming trends.

At least half of current vegetated areas are predicted to shift to a different type of vegetation class, with a general trend of now - present grasses and small shrubs yielding to larger shrubs and trees as the climate warms, the scientists said.

Time series of temperature anomaly for all waters warmer than 14 °C show large reductions in interannual to inter-decadal variability and a more spatially uniform upper ocean warming trend (0.12 Wm − 2 on average) than previous results.

Given the strength of the Hurst coefficients — something we all agree on — is it not possible that a large portion of the current warming trend is a product of internal climate variability, as mediated by complex dynamics of ocean circulation?

Nonetheless, even if the substantial recent trend in the AO pattern is simply a product of natural multidecadal variability in North Atlantic climate, it underscores the fact that western and southern Greenland is an extremely poor place to look, from a signal vs. noise point of view, for the large - scale polar amplification signature of anthropogenic surface warming.

This finding might imply that warming trends will drive local microbes to produce larger amounts of methane.

The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend.

«2015 was remarkable even in the context of the larger, long - term warming trend,» Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a statement.

«Roughly doubled» certainly has it «more in line with other trends,» but I'd say still showing only 50 % of surface warming is a huge gap to fill when it is supposed to be at least as large as the surface warming.

Seasonal decreases in land precipitation since the 1950s are the main cause for some of the drying trends, although large surface warming during the last two to three decades has also likely contributed to the drying.

From his own research in chemical oceanography, along with data from a number of recent studies, Weber points out that some negative consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and warming «are manifesting faster than previously predicted,» including ocean acidification and oxygen loss, which are expected to affect «a large fraction of marine species if current trends continue unchecked.»

Throughout the altimeter era, it has been recognized that sea level rise is not constant but varies considerably about the background trend, with the largest of these departures coinciding with the warm and cold phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) such as in 1997 — 1998 (Fig. 2).

Large - scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the «Medieval Warm Period») and a relatively cold period (or «Little Ice Age») centered around 1warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the «Medieval Warm Period») and a relatively cold period (or «Little Ice Age») centered around 1Warm Period») and a relatively cold period (or «Little Ice Age») centered around 1700.

It's been argued a significant trend is expected under a warming climate, but the signal - to - noise ratio is still too low in most places in Antarctica, even where the warming trend (e.g. WAIS) is quite large.

46 ccpo says, «So, when 9 of the top ten warmest years have all been in the last 10 or 11 years, that's a very large signal, particularly since it sits at the end of a very long upward trend.»

I think a large majority of the long - term trend (i.e. 100 years) is explained by anthropogenic warming.

«Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes.»

«Roughly doubled» certainly has it «more in line with other trends,» but I'd say still showing only 50 % of surface warming is a huge gap to fill when it is supposed to be at least as large as the surface warming.

So, when 9 of the top ten warmest years have all been in the last 10 or 11 years, that's a very large signal, particularly since it sits at the end of a very long upward trend.

4:38 p.m. Updated I read Mark Fischetti's piece on global warming and hurricanes in Scientific American just now, which points to a recent PNAS study finding «a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events» from tropical cyclones in the Atlantic.

Large variability reduces the number of new records — which is why the satellite series of global mean temperature have fewer expected records than the surface data, despite showing practically the same global warming trend: they have more short - term variability.

In other words, the same natural forcings that appear responsible for the modest large - scale cooling of the LIA should have lead to a cooling trend during the 20th century (some warming during the early 20th century arises from a modest apparent increase in solar irradiance at that time, but the increase in explosive volcanism during the late 20th century leads to a net negative 20th century trend in natural radiative forcing).

So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much — while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.

«The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long - term trends associated with global warming.

Nonetheless, even if the substantial recent trend in the AO pattern is simply a product of natural multidecadal variability in North Atlantic climate, it underscores the fact that western and southern Greenland is an extremely poor place to look, from a signal vs. noise point of view, for the large - scale polar amplification signature of anthropogenic surface warming.

We will at some point post something on the climate / hurricane arguments, but a basic fact is that there is a huge difference between claiming that global warming trends will tend, statistically, to lead to more / larger hurricanes, and attributing specific events in specific years to such causes.

Connolley and Bracegirdle (2007) show that expected trends in a much larger sample of models are very varied (though the ensemble mean warms at about the rate seen in the Steig et al paper).

The first issue is that because of the large heat capacity of the southern oceans, warming trends are in general going to be smaller than in the northern hemisphere.

[Response: You're missing the argument about the importance of nonlinear trends, particular wrt the large increase in warming since 1980, in driving the pattern of expected and observed extremes, as discussed on pages 3 - 4 of the article.

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].

Also, because, by their very nature, extreme events are rare, it would not be possible to have a meaningful statistical trend until a large amount of global warming had already happened.

Honestly, anybody who claims that «there has been global cooling or that global warming has halted since 2000 (or whatever)» really does not understand climatic trends nor the difference between a long - term underlying trend vs. short - term fluctuations which have a larger magnitude (in both directions) than the trend.

[1] Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large - scale surface - air temperature trends.

I also agree that model predictions of 0.2 C surface warming per decade were clearly inaccurate, but on the larger question of climate trends, they were probably not very far off.

Does anyone remember, it was in this blog also, a discussion about cooling trends in certain regions or demographics but they were simply variations within the larger scheme of global warming?

The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923.

A rather different way to say this would be «No single event can be seen as definitive proof of global warming — rather, a trend or pattern must be identified by analyzing a large number of individual events.»

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).