Sentences with phrase «longer warming signal»

A chart published previously by Skeptical Science illustrates how a short - term trend can be cherry picked from the longer warming signal:

Not exact matches

The only way to do that is to use models to ask how long should it take for the signal of warming to be clearly outside the norm,» Deutsch said.

The research concludes that for other changes, such as regional warming and sea ice changes, the observations over the satellite - era since 1979 are not yet long enough for the signal of human - induced climate change to be clearly separated from the strong natural variability in the region

The results call for re-examination of long - term sea - level records to detect the true warming signal, the paper says.

The dominant signal in the temperature record (the white line in the above figure) is a 100,000 year cycle where long ice ages are broken by short warm periods called interglacials.

Longer shadows and golden light signal the gradual change that's been taking place lately, but I've been making the most of the odd warm day to bring out something you've not yet seen this year.

But the Copper Country Humane Society (CCHS) would like to remind everyone that the warmer weather that lets them enjoy long walks with their four - legged friends also signals...

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.»

The climate scientists were working on this long before a climate warming signal could begin to be detected statistically.

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.

[Response: No — the long term warming trend is a much stronger signal relative to the non-anthropogenic baseline.

According to research by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), based at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the decline in summer Arctic sea ice «is considered a strong signal of long - term climate warming».

Which is why warming trend signals take a long period before they can be confidently detected.

Does the pause signal a longer - term halt to global warming or even a long - term cooling trend?

This might be a good time to review all the potential signs and signals of AGW (all three parts: anthropogenic, global, warming), how to distinguish anthropogenic CO2 effects from natural variability and land use changes, and how long an interval the apparent signal has to persist in order to reach a reasonable conclusion.

You can't distinguish a trend (= global warming signal) from a cycle (= long term variability) without data long compared to the cycles to be excluded.

«Here we present an analysis based on sea - level data from the altimetry record of the past ~ 20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer - term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming... Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short - term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal.»

As we discussed in Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1, it's a very common mistake - even amongst some climate scientists - to confuse short - term climate noise with long - term global warming signal.

While the climate change signal is much clearer in the northern latitudes - where longer - term records show a relatively steady retreat of Arctic sea ice - evidence of global warming's impact around Antarctica is also showing up in the observations.

Isn't «long - term» a relative term, which in this case simply compares the oscillation length of natural fluctuations with the century - long climate record that includes an anthropogenic warming signal?

In short, those arguing that global warming has stopped are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short - term noise while ignoring the long - term global warming signal.

When constantly confronted with this myth that global warming stopped in 1998, or 2000, or 2002, or 2005, or [insert year], we wonder why distinguishing between short - term noise and long - term signal is such a difficult concept for climate «skeptics.»

Natural variability is much smaller than the long - term global warming signal, and smaller even than the global warming signal over the past two decades.

With another year's worth of data to discern long - term signal from short - term noise that figure will increase to greater a than 95 % chance that the planet is warming.»

Yah, it cools a bit, then it warms a bit, then it cools... as Dr Courtney reminds us, the classic averaging period to discern the long term climate signal is thirty years and over this period all the global temperature series show a warming trend in line with that predicted by AGW.

(I propose that this is because the long term warming signal is much smaller over 1900 - 1960 than 1900 - 2009, and it gets «covered» by the larger «natural variation» «noise».)

I would think that the very first thing one would look to, as a researcher, as to what might be showing a century long trend towards warming would be solar output, if for no other reason to subtract it from the gross trend to isolate any anthropogenic signals.

Indeed I think it is possible that over such longer periods of time the sun itself alters the strength of the net ENSO signal to produce long term warming or cooling trends in the troposphere globally.

If you really have a warming signal in climate (and I believe there is one), then that means air conditioners will be on more often, asphalt will absorb more heat and hold it longer, and maybe even the barbecues will be used more often.

If the global warming signal can be masked for long periods by energy flows into the deep oceans, presumably a spurious or exaggerated warming signal can be created by flows in the opposite direction.

Having shown the warming signal with no thermometers, just barometers, it won't be long before the skeptics start questioning the barometers too.

«Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long - term warming because of man - made climate change... «Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.»

But they conclude that for other changes, including regional warming and sea ice changes, the observations since 1979 are not yet long enough for the signal of human activity to be clearly separated from the strong natural variability.

The variance of weather is then still the same, but the seasonal warming over this longer period is much larger, so now you get a sensible signal / noise ratio.

cyclones 3 - 5 million years ago: http://www.physorg.com/news186250015.html «there were twice as many tropical cyclones during this period, and they lasted two to three days longer on average than they do now» «temperatures were up to four degrees Celsius warmer than today» on the WMO: ``... we can not at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.»