Sentences with phrase «much about the long term trends»

I agree with you that the last decade really doesn't tell you that much about the long term trends, given the size of the error bars, but it does allow for some interesting analysis of the difference between individual temperature records during that period (e.g. ENSO responses of satellites vs. surface measurements, effects of different ways of treating arctic temperatures, etc.).

Not exact matches

As much as Cuomo vehemently disclaims any thinking about a presidential run, he's avidly attentive to how his current moves fit into longer - term political trends.

Since the science and theory linking global warming in the short term is much weaker than the underlying rationale for long - term global warning, arguing about short term trends is dangerous.

Yeah, we get it about the long - term trend not changing much, the rat's ass etc..

Yeah, we get it about the long - term trend not changing much, the rat's a $ $ (moderation) etc..

Anyway, the researchers at Duke «say trends over just a 10 - year period do not show much about long - term warming,» and there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that long - term warming over the next 100 years is going to be anything even noticeable, abnormal.

An objective post on this would have started by showing the annual temperature trend, such as this with 2014 short - term averages added in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/mean:3 We would note that the trend is 0.16 C per decade since 1970, that the temperature mostly does not follow the trend but oscillates equally to about 0.1 C on each side, and that 2014 has returned to the long - term trend line in much the same way as several other cooler periods have.

«One individual short - term trend doesn't tell you much about long - term climate change,» Santer said.»

Amazing how the «long term trend» is COOLING, * NOT * warming, yet the (MUCH) shorter (but measured by more modern means) and relatively meaningless «long term» trend is all they want to talk about.

I don't consider myself to be an expert by any means but in the few years I have been taking an interest in the subject of climate change I have tried to educate myself as much as possible about the various scientific arguments surrounding the subject, and one thing that has constantly been impressed upon my mind is that when there is a long term trend caused by increasing GHG levels there will periods when it is masked (or accentuated) by short term natural variability.

As you mention, much of this has been discussed before, including the principle that small natural variations can't trigger a very long term upward trend in temperature and ocean heat uptake in the absence of a climate sensitivity value that is astronomically high (Swanson and Tsonis have made essentially the same point about long term trends).

You can not infer much about short - term fluctuations from temporally low resolution series, but as Leif Svalgaard at WUWT comments you can infer the long - term trend.

As SkS has discussed at length with Dr. Pielke Sr., over short timeframes on the order of a decade, there is too much noise in the data to draw any definitive conclusions about changes in the long - term trend.

You're really just describing what the steps are, without saying much at all about any long - term trend.

It all comes down to whether Canadians should have the policy that affects their daily lives determined on the basis of reliable data capable of tracking long - term trends (or developments about which much fuss may be made, but that have no longevity) or not.