Sentences with phrase «significant global warming trend»

The updated data shows a statistically significant global warming trend over the 1998 - 2012 period and the authors note that their results «do not support the notion of a «slowdown» in the increase of global surface temperature.»

UAH satellite data has shown no significant global warming trend in more than 15 years — the Remote Sensing Systems satellite dataset shows no warming for more than 18 years.

For two of the datasets, it's now up to at least 20 years without a statistically - significant global warming trend.

Not exact matches

They found no significant trends, but when they put the data into computer models and simulated a rise in temperature — as predicted through global warming — the results were striking.

The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes.

Dr. Benestad's reasoning is based on the erroneous assumption that if there are no significant trends in some proxies for the solar activity since 1950s the sun is not contributing to the global warming.

Global warming is a small but persistent trend that has significant impacts upon the Earth's climate.

4:38 p.m. Updated I read Mark Fischetti's piece on global warming and hurricanes in Scientific American just now, which points to a recent PNAS study finding «a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events» from tropical cyclones in the Atlantic.

The scientists found no significant relationship to global warming (there's no trend at all in such blocking events in that region, for instance).

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

has an excellent overview of energy trends in the world — and what would need to happen for the world to curtail its greenhouse gas emissions and avoid significant global warming.

Tung & Zhou in their analysis are removing a significant portion of the global warming from the global warming, artificially decreasing the trends.

A «pause» in the global temperature trend can be diagnosed, when both of the following criteria are fulfilled: a) based on a robust statistical analysis, the global temperature trend is not statistically distinguishable from the Zero trend, b) based on a robust statistical analysis, the global temperature trend is statistically distinguishable from the longer - term, multi-decadal warming trend (which itself is highly statistically significant).

Now if someone were to dsay, as Judith clearly did not although she had many opportunities to do so, that «concurrent with warming of our oceans there has been a relatively short - term hiatus in the trend of significant increase in global surface temperatures,» then I would not have a problem with the logic.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

Interestingly, the paper «Climate Trends and Global food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rGlobal food production since 1980» (Lobell, Schlenker, Costa - Roberts, in Sciencexpress, 5 May, Science 1204531) confirms my finding of the absence of climate change in the USA: «A notable exception to the [global] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal] warming pattern is the United States, which produces c. 40 % of global maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends&rglobal maize and soybean and experienced a slight cooling over the period... the country with largest overall share of crop production (United States) showed no [adverse] effect due to the lack of significant climate trends».

First, Happer mentions statistical significance, but global surface temperature trends are rarely if ever statistically significant (at a 95 % confidence level) over periods as short as a decade, even in the presence of an underlying long - term warming trend, because of the natural variability and noise in the climate system.

PRINCETON, NJ — The slight upward trend in Americans» concern about global warming over the past decade masks a more significant trend: the growing gap between Republicans and Democrats over global warming.

If current trends in global warming continue unmitigated, some of the world's most well - known and historically significant cultural landmarks — including the Statue of Liberty in New York City, the Tower of London in the United Kingdom, and the archaeological sites of Pompeii in Italy — could be destroyed by rising global sea levels over the next 2,000 years, according to new research.

Marcott paper Basically the folks at RC have probably made poor ol Marcott respond that the uptick did not matter anyway its not important, significant, robust etc don't rely on it just forget about it please etc but unfortunately for them as Ross MC on Realclimate reply, at CA says «But that is precisely what they do in Figure 3 of their paper, and it is the basis of their claim that «Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long - term cooling trend that began ~ 5000 yr B.P.» Without the uptick in their proxy reconstruction this kind of statement could never have been made.

... incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits any mention of several of the most important aspects of the potential relationships between hurricanes and global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts; and 3) does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.

The trick is to find a time period just short enough so that the trends are not statistically significant anymore, and ta ta, one can claim a «global warming stop» for the time period.

Among the aspects of that variation that we can isolate are probably factors that have produced a general «global» warming trend since the deepest part of the «Little Ice Age», long before any «mainstream» estimate of anthropogenic changes to pCO2 would have been significant.

Yet the linear trend on the Hadley / CRU monthly global temperature anomalies for the 18 years 1995 - 2012 shows no statistically - significant warming, even though the partial pressure of CO2 rose by about a tenth in that time.

For longer time periods appropriate to the assessment of trends, however, global temperatures have experienced significant warming for all seasons except winter, when cooling trends exist instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

Based on previously reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected; and computation of global temperature trends over longer periods does exhibit statistically significant warming.

On 17 - year trends, we can achieve 95 % confidence reaching to the end of 2005 of strong ongoing statistically significant global warming.

As can be seen, for the period chosen in this example, the 24 years (288 months) ending July 2013, the «global warming» trend is not statistically significant.

I'm very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don't see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

Werner Brozek: What you are missing is the fact that just because the trend since a certain time is not statistically - significant does not mean that global warming has stopped at that time, particularly when the difference of the trend from the longer term trend is not statistically - significant either.

Jones answered honestly, if a bit clumsily, that the data period since 1995 is marginally too short to derive a statistically significant trend, a response which was headlined by the Daily Mail as «Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?»

For this article, a statistically - significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95 % statistical confidence (i.e. the 95 % error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).

Or, using a very simplified example, a calculated (estimated) linear global warming trend, of say 1.50 °C / century, is not statistically - significant if the error bars are at ± 1.55 °C.

There will never have been statistically significant global warming is the last few years, because statistical significance is heavily dependent on the amount of data points and hence the length of the record you are trending.

This was significant, said Carrington, «because the rate of global warming from 2000 - 2009 is lower than the 0.16 C per decade trend seen since the late 1970s -LSB-...] the warming rate for the past 10 years is estimated at 0.08 - 0.16 C».

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).

iii) Over the last 3 decades, every individual station north of 70o indicates warming, 13 of 17 are significant at 95 % confidence, all estimated trend rates are faster than the global average, some are more than five times as fast.

Although the global temperature data show short periods of greater and smaller warming trends, and even short periods of cooling, the team's key question was whether or not these are statistically significant in showing a change in the form of a slowdown or acceleration of global warming, or whether they are merely expected fluctuations — or noise — in the data.

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.

On the other hand, the «pause» is being tested by analyzing whether the shorter - term temperature trend is a non-random deviation from the longer - term global warming trend, which itself, as we know, is statistically significant.

Outcome 1: Rejection of the Null - hypothesis, here «Zero temperature trend» =» pause», and confirmation of the alternative hypothesis, here statistically significant global warming (for a chosen error probability), or Outcome 2: Failure of rejecting the Null - hypothesis.

I incorporate ENSO directly into the CSALT model, and this contributes a significant factor to the noise of the global warming trend.

It seems fairly obvious that continuation of a 20th Century warming trend is not seen as supportive of CAGW hypothesis, and what is * needed * is a significant increase in the rate of global warming.

This mirrors the significant rise in global temperatures detected over the past 30 years, supporting the conclusion that there is a global trend toward enhanced glacier frontal recession in recent decades and providing support for the assertion that glacier recession can be attributed to recent warming.»

To have periods of a decade or even longer when there is no significant net increase in global temperature, despite a continuing long - term warming trend, is not in the least surprising — in fact it's expected.

The blue 1 - year (12 - month) trends show the dramatic global warming trend reversal over the most recent months - from a peak in March 2016 to what now amounts to being a significant cooling trend by October 2016.

James» quote - «In the BAMS article, the authors criticize others for irresponsible public statements on global warming and praise their own caution, yet the press release they quote asserts an «increased risk» of category - 5 hurricanes threatening the southeastern U.S., but neither their own two articles, nor the data they claim to have used, show any such statistically significant trend.»

In the BAMS article, the authors criticize others for irresponsible public statements on global warming and praise their own caution, yet the press release they quote asserts an «increased risk» of category - 5 hurricanes threatening the southeastern U.S., but neither their own two articles, nor the data they claim to have used, show any such statistically significant trend.

While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease.