Sentences with phrase «of pause»

You ignore the fact that the previous paper said the Trade Winds had been slowing down for decades and that this was also the cause of the pause.

The claim of a pause is noise made by global warming deniers who are misinforming themselves and others.

But, you're making the same claim that this is the cause of the pause, when it's more likely that a positive AMO and PDO both simultaneously warmed the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the 20th century, the History of the late 30's had the same high temps (and melted Arctic), which were followed by cold PDO phase.

Causes of the pause only some of the 40 1.

We can see that the claims of a pause or plateau can not be supported by statistics.

So 1998 - 2012 became known as the years of a pause, a slowdown or a hiatus.

Scientists do not agree on the explanations for the Late Ordovician glaciation, as they do not agree on the causes of the Pause.

We need severities, probability and confidence, scientists» views on the likely roles of different forcings and feedbacks, interpretations of the pause in mean global surface temps, estimates of consequences and benefits of warming, etc..

This eliminates any evidence of any pause, which strongly suggests that the pause is probably due to ENSO (and thus is a redistribution of heat rather than a pause in warming).

Unfortunately using global average surface air temperatures as a measure of total warming ignores the fact that most of the heat (more than 93 %) goes into our oceans, which continue to warm without any sign of a pause, as you can see below.

Like the overturning meridional circulation each new theory also overturns the last, Otherwise with 3 decades of pause when it should have been 0.6 degrees and lets say 40 theories all working we would be 24 degrees colder in a snowball earth!

Skeptics have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the sun as an explanation of the pause.

Note that the short time scales considered here preclude determination of a statistically significant trend at the 95 % confidence level, although lack of statistical signficance does not negate the existence of a pause as defined here.

If we're taking Dr. Curry's definition of pause at face value, you aren't actually showing it on your graphs.

«Lack of statistical signficance does not negate the existence of a pause as defined here» — Who is claiming that there's definitive evidence that global warming has not paused?

well that criterion isn't fullfilled either, as is well known from the many analyses where the effects of ENSO have been subtracted from the time series (after which there is no evidence of any pause in the warming, suggesting that the pause is due to the effects of ENSO).

This made me laugh with it's grudging nod to, and simultaneous breezy dismissal of the pause (nothing to see here, move along).

You claimed that it has paused, and your definition of pause now appears to be, «Anything that looks to anyone like a pause in one moving average or another over any time period, but is not a pause according to any statistical test.»

The duration and magnitude of a pause that is significant in the context of the AGW debate is debatable, but I have made some suggestions.

The existence of the pause / hiatus proves that it is not.»

Judith: Your definition of a pause is somewhat incomplete: a trend of 0.17 - 0.2 C / decade isn't useful until you include unforced variation to your model.

The Sun and volcanoes may account a little bit, but ENSO alone accounts for most of the pause.

Now, yes, it's only been 10 years for my definition of the pause.

In fact years of negotiating prior to K15 took no notice of the pause.

Any honest analysis of the pause has to include the period preceding the 1998 step because the pause line by itself is discontinuous with the previous record.

the reader might be in a better place to contextualise what comes next; «While opinions on causes differ, existence of the pause is settled; only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist,» — Asten.

The notion of trying to extracate ENSO from trends is appealing, but fraught with pitfalls (how much of the pause is lack of El Ninos?

The second hypothesis is that ENSO is responsible for the slowdown since it magnified the warming over the first half of the pause and reduced it over the last half.

We know that the pause is entirely a consequence of the fact that over the last few years (the last half of the pause) the temperature has lagged the long term trend.

The average duration of a pause found by the studies was 13.5 years.

And it is not its refutation of the pause or any other aspect of climate science.

Unless temperatures return to the level of the Pause years for the next five years or so, the Pause is not going to return — whether or not Karl's adjustments are accepted or refuted.

Now, many people like to use 1998 as the start of the pause.

But how to explain the starting date of the pause — and how soon might it end?

The other being the present length of the pause in light of Santer 2011 (need 17 years) and McKittrick 2014 (16, 19, or 26 years of no observed warming).

Recently they have had a tendency to pull temperatures up during the first half of the pause, and down during the last half.

The problem here is one of balancing; the amount of cooling by volcanism, for example, has to be just right to offset the warming from CO2 during the entire duration of the pause.

A year ago, claims of a pause were met with angry jeers of «denier!»

That might give a bit of pause for thought about density and its effect on the ability of air packets at different altitudes to retain the heat of the Sun.

ARGO covers approximately half the period of the pause.

This by - passed the problem of the pause, because the pause didn't start until the late 1990s / early 2000s, and so the 2000s as a whole were still technically warmer than the 1990s!

If cooling ensues (or even an extension of the pause) for 10 - 20 years, that 50 % may drop even further although it may take the mainstream some time to accept this.

The empirical evidence of the pause has not supported the prediction of a severely warming atmosphere for almost two decades now.

Alternatively, the IPCC Co-Chairs and Co-ordinating Lead Authors suggested focusing on 30 - year time periods, because then the 15 - 20 years before the pause could be grouped with the 10 - 15 years of the pause.

So, for example, we did a Science Media Centre briefing last year on the end of the pause in global mean warming.

Don't bother trying to convince them of a pause in the warming.

Clearly, existing GMST estimates at «climate scale» are not long enough because they still show ENSO, AMO and PDO «oscillations», as witnessed by consensus explanations (note plural and speculative) of the pause.

Take 30 - year temperatures and there is no hint of a pause.

You appear to be in denial of the pause.

You've been shown the evidence of the pause.