Sentences with phrase «regional warming trends»

Plain Language Summary: Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling.

Which data sets (raw or homogenized trends) best agrees with the hypothesis that ocean temperatures drive regional warming trends?

But the more immediate goal concerns a regional warming trend in Antarctica.

And, in the more bad news department, we have a recent paper of regional warming trend projections, which indicates that all of the contiguous United States will experience 2 °C of warming (above pre-industrial) within 20 - 30 years.

Not exact matches

The research team drew information from huge stream - temperature and biological databases contributed by over 100 agencies and a USGS - run regional climate model to describe warming trends throughout 222,000 kilometers (138,000 miles) of streams in the northwestern United States.

Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia3, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends.

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted.

The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere.

However, there are various other plausible explanations, for example: — changes in US temperatures since the 1930s / 1940s show regional variation within the overall warming trend at those latitudes; — actually I'm struggling to think of any others, apart from inaccuracies in the US temperature record but these have tended to point the other way.

The break - up dates are strongly correlated to regional spring temperatures, which have warmed over the century, tracking the Nenana trend.

The result is that there is no difference in regional cloud cover trends, neither of precipitation, with increasing contamination and that the contaminated area has more dimming, but warmed more than the less contaminated area.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted.

But the regional climate of Greenland (and of most of the Arctic) remained longer cooler, compared to the global trend in the second warming period.

Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends.

These systems likely contribute to an observed regional trend of increasing extreme rainfall, and poor prediction of them likely contributes to a warm, dry bias in climate models downstream of the Sierras de Córdoba in a key agricultural region.

China's «FGOALS - g2 ″ appears to be the best performer at replicating regional trends, but still over / under - predicts the warming trend by about 0.5 C per century almost everywhere.»

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.

Just as importantly, he says, the model helps to explain regional trends that seem to defy the global warming hiatus, including record - breaking heat in the United States last year, and the continued decline of Arctic sea ice.

Although impacts of UHIs on the absolute annual and seasonal temperature are identified, UHI contributions to the long - term trends are less than 10 % of the regional total warming during the period.

Those who cry «regional trend» ought to remember that the Arctic and Antarctic are also REGIONS (polar regions) which are used as global indicators by the anthropocentric warming enthusiasts.

With true global coverage later in the record the surface warming trend overwhelms any regional temperature cyclicity, as you've very convincingly demonstrated.

Additionally, evidence shows that this drought was part of a larger regional warming and drying trend — one that doesn't correspond to natural climate variability but does to the global rise in greenhouse gases.

We have been investigating the causes and impacts of these trends, with a focus on determining if the regional warming and cooling patterns result from natural variability or are due to human activities.

However, as both SLR and increased rainfall are known to happen as a result of warming, perhaps there is an answer in regional basin temperature trends.

Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2 % to regional average warming trends.

If it can go from global warming to freezing ass cold fronts, why not from cold trend to regional record - setting heat?

Unlike the continental U.S., with its abundance of micro and regional climates, the small island area of Great Britain affords less climate variety yet produces similar warming / cooling trends over the recent past.

1934 was a sharp regional spike whereas recent warming is, from the figures, part of an overall warming trend as evidenced from the 5 year means.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

«The reality of urban warming on local and small regional scales is not questioed by this work; it is the impact of urban warming on estimates of global and large regional trends that is shown to be small.»

Once you prove to 95 % that the globe is warming, deniers start to focus on regional trends.

I'm alternately told by «skeptics» (1) it's regional impact that's important, (2) it's global data that's more important, (3) there is no such thing as «global temperatures,» (4) «skeptics» are not monolithic, (5) «skeptics» don't doubt that global temperatures are warming (and that it is to some extent influenced by AC02), or alternately «we dismiss non-Global data), (6) all methodologyies used to determine global temps are unreliable, (7) global warming has stopped, (8) we're experiencing global cooling, (9) what matters is long term trends, (10) short - term trends are significant, (11) what's happening in Arctic isn't important (because it's regional), (12) what's happening in the Antarctic is important (despite it being regional).

That we tend to see much more discussion about global warming is I think because of the limitations of the climate models when they go to more regional and seasonal predictions and refinements of max versus min temperature trends.

If two stations warm due to increasing populations and the 3rd does not, the 2 «urbanized» stations create a regional expectation for the assumed trend.

While we have not evaluated all of the feedback mechanisms and internal and external forcing factors involved, we have shown evidence that the West Antarctic warming is consistent with the regional decline of sea ice in the ABS and with the atmospheric circulation trends over the Southern Oceans.

They found that global temperatures fluctuated in specific regional patterns but that all regions except Antarctica saw a long - term cooling trend followed by significant warming in the past 30 years.

Note that I am not saying that warming has not taken place just that it is not global — BEST admits that 30 % of the stations have cooled and that is true of severla of therse long term stations — but that we should concentrate on finding a useful set of temperature trends in regional and zonal areas that reflect the impacts of climate change, as for example the Sahel, and understand the true reasons without assuming carbon dioxide to be the culprit.

Clive, that's all fine and dandy, except those warming trends did not take place globally, they were regional trends.

Mi Cro August 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm Clive, that's all fine and dandy, except those warming trends did not take place globally, they were regional trends.............................. We are finalising an analysis for Australia that shows of the claimed 1 deg C or so of warming since 1900, the maximum temperature change based on unadjusted data is half that or less, so 0.45 degrees for the century in the USA would fall neatly in the range we estimate for Australia.

In other words, trends and / or variability in larger - scale features of the climate (including rising temperature from global warming) are not very strongly (if at all) related to regional and temporal characteristics of streamflows across the U.S.

But as this Holland dataset confirms, the actual empirical global and regional trends of a climatic shift of ever more severe weather events do not support the alarmists» predictions; the irrational fears of more frequent / larger weather disasters as a result of CO2 or global / regional «warming» is unjustified, per the scientific evidence.

Two plausible answers: 1) The regional climate trend where many lakes where proxies are available started warming 100 yrs before the industrial revolution.

The broader Hemispheric and regional picture shows that warm events occurring during the two most recent winters were much more extreme than the cold outbreaks and are consistent with a long ‐ term and accelerating warming trend.

He continually confuses global, regional, and local temperature trends, which may differ considerably; he mischaracterizes the results of a poll that was undertaken to determine scientists» views on global warming; and he mistakenly asserts that the sea level has not risen significantly, when it has.

Although there might be «slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more,» they write, the clear long - term trend is «substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate.»

The abstract to this 2010 paper, including Jones, http://www.springerlink.com/content/kr5w2616551w7810/ explicitly states: «Although impacts of UHIs on the absolute annual and seasonal temperature are identified, UHI contributions to the long - term trends are less than 10 % of the regional total warming during the period.»

The basic idea seems to be that the strong Arctic warming trend of 1.5 C / decade by comparison with a global trend of 0.2 C / decade indicates that there's some regional effect which makes the difference from the rest of the planet.