Sentences with phrase «of warming over»

The surface record is also far longer — dating back to 1880 — and as of the end of 2015 shows a full 1 degree Celsius of warming over pre-industrial temperatures, according to NASA and NOAA.

Would this imply a deceleration in the rate of warming over the 20th century?

If you look at my tables here, http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/ you will notice that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period, we find a ratio of maxima: means: minima of 0.036:0.014:0.006.

Based on Nuccitelli's opening illustration and statement, we should expect the ocean heat content of the Pacific Ocean to be showing a monumental amount of warming over the past 10 years.

The absence of warming over the past 15 to 20 years amidst rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels poses a fundamental challenge to mainstream climate modeling.

Your work has shown a very pronounced area of warming over the penisula.

«Snyder said if climate factors are the same as in the past — and that's a big if,» AP noted, «Earth is already committed to another 7 degrees or so (about 4 degrees Celsius) of warming over the next few thousand years.»

The 5AR's «Summary for Policymakers,» released last week, acknowledged that «the rate of warming over the past 15 years... is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,» before concluding that «warming of the climate system is unequivocal.»

This of course raises the concern that maybe other features of the climatic data are equally suspect, including some of the warming over land since 1980.

Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley - CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that «all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.»

What are telling observations against the hypothesis of a largely internally driven imbalance are, on the one hand, the fact the sea level variations are relentlessly positive, irrespective the phase of the PDO, and, on the second hand, the fact that the rate of warming over land is larger than it is over sea (and also that the shallow (0 - 700m) ocean layer never actually cools).

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the reduced rate of warming in its latest report: «The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 — 2012; 0.05 °C per decade)... is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951 — 2012; 0.12 °C per decade).»

Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

At a minimum, the net contribution of AMO to global temperature increases from 1980 to the present is zero (15 years of cooling from 1980 to 1995, 15 years of warming from 1995 to 2010), meaning that all of the warming over that 30 year period is attributable to CO2.

The predictions of warming over the century seem to rely on a significant multiplier (positive feedback) of the direct warming due to the added CO2.

None but the most radical alarmists claim that all of the warming over the past century is anthropogenic.

Now for other reasons, I believe it may turn out to be a real event, which is why I say my bet is that in fifteen years or so we will look back and say that the rate of warming over those fifteen years was higher than the so called hiatus.

I don't know offhand about the rate of warming over the last 30 years relative to other 30 - year periods **, but I do know offhand that evidence supports the most recent warmth is unusual for the last several hundred or more years.

The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established — that is «highly likely» and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion.

The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established

So even if you believe that all of the warming over the last 50 years was anthropogenic, you'd also have to admit that close to half of the warming over the last 200 years was probably natural.

Even if we assign every bit of 20th century warming to man - made causes, this still only implies 1C of warming over the next century.

That panel's first assessment report in 1990 concluded that «the size of the warming over the last century is... of the same magnitude as natural climate variability» and that «the unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.»

One of its most striking findings is its conclusion that the upper range of warming over the next 100 years could be even higher than it estimated in 1995, in a worst case raising the average global temperature 11 degrees Fahrenheit from where it was in 1990.

What they say: «The rate of warming over the past 15 years [at 0.05 C per decade] is smaller than the trend since 1951.»

In other words, the world's glaciers have not yet caught up with the rate of warming over recent decades.

Bear in mind too that very few scientists close to the problem, when asked the specific question, would say there is only a very small possibility (for example, less than 5 per cent) that internal ocean behaviour could be a major cause of the warming over the past half - century (27).

The oceans have a vertical temperature profile, they have accumulated huge amounts of energy over the last half - century of measurements, that translates into different amounts of warming over the vertical ocean profile.

We give a closer and narrower range (above present) because amplification of warming over Greenland may be greater (26) than assumed (12, 25) because of more rapid sea - ice decline than modeled (17).

The relatively slow rate of warming over the past decade has lowered some estimates of climate sensitivity based on surface temperature records.

Each record is constructed on the basis of monthly average raw data from selected meteorological stations around the world, and all show similar magnitudes and rates of warming over the last century.

So where does Pekka get «do not credibly extend lower than half of warming over years 1950 - 2010»?

«How can we use the spatial pattern of the surface temperature evolution to help determine how much of the warming over the past century was forced by increases in the well - mixed greenhouse gases (WMGGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs), assuming as little as possible about the non-WMGG forcing and internal variability.»

In addition, the rate of warming over the 21st century is projected to be far faster than has occurred over such periods since the end of the last glacial period, again long before societal development.

Even if we could assign a certain fraction of warming over the past century or so to natural variation, we still would face very large uncertainty in aerosol influences... and modelers would continue to use those vastly uncertain aerosol influences as as a «free» variable to «tune» the models.

GISS shows about.2 * C of warming over the last 17 years.

The fact is that the actual peer - reviewed scientific research shows that (a) the rate of warming over the past century is unprecedented as far back as the 20,000 years paleoclimate scientists are able to extend the record and (b) that warming can ONLY be explained by human influences.

If I recall correctly, you previously felt that there is a non-negligible possibility that more than 50 % of warming over the last century is attributable to AC02.

Not just that it is unlikely that, or unknown whether, more than 50 % of warming over the last century is ACO2 caused.

«The [Hockey Stick] graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade).

Is Judith's statement about it being «foolish» to think that ACO2 dominates the climate on centennial (or decadal) scale in contradiction to Lewis» 90 % CI that goes up to 3.0 °C per doubling (considering the magnitude of warming over the last 60 years or so projected out another 40 years)?

The mean estimate is that ~ 110 % of the warming over the last half - century is due to us.

The residual calculated rate of warming over the last cool and warm regime — 1945 to 1998 — is 0.07 degrees C / decade.

I think 1C or 2C of warming over the next century would be great (even though I probably won't be around to enjoy the warmth).

(3) The expectation in AR4 (2007) of warming over the coming two decades is not falsified by slower warming over the period before it was published.

IPCC predictions recognize the existence of changes in the pace of warming over those time scales.

And why is there so little reduction of the warming over land during the pause?

Note that the forcing increase since 1950 is about 3 times that from 1880 to 1950, hence the theory would expect a greater rate of warming over the past 60 years compared to the past 130 years.

Again, they repeat the consensus attribution claim that slightly over 100 % of the warming over the past 50 years (roughly the AGW period) is caused by humans.

Shaviv and Veizer's paper was accompanied by a press release titled «Global warming not a man - made phenomenon», in which Shaviv is quoted stating: «The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man».