Sentences with phrase «significant warming trend does»

(When reading the WUWT article, remember that a statistically - significant warming trend does not necessarily mean that it is a climate - significant trend.)

The lack of a statistically significant warming trend in GMST does not mean that the planet isn't warming, firstly because GMST doesn't include the warming of the oceans (see many posts on ocean heat content) and secondly because a lack of a statistically significant warming trend doesn't mean that it isn't warming, just that it isn't warming at a sufficiently high rate to rule out the possibility of there being no warming over that period.

Not exact matches

It also doesn't help when you can go to climate4you.com and see a 350 year chart from central England showing a long slight warming trend, with no significant deviations, over the time span.

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.

A single warm month in climate terms does not a significant trend make.

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.

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.

So if Eric could somehow justify doing so, our West Antarctic trend would increase from 0.10 Deg C / decade to 0.16 Deg C / decade, and the area of statistically significant trends would grow to cover the WAIS divide, yielding statistically significant warming over 56 % (instead of 33 %) of West Antarctica.

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.

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.

There is nothing more that needs to be said about this graph, except to have a good laugh at those who claim it does not show a significant warming trend.

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).

Regardless of what references can be given to other sources, the data is right there now and does indeed show a statistically significant warming trend over that period.

You can not justify cherry - picking 1998 as the «start date of a 15 - year trend showing imperceptible warming» (as Met Office did) versus cherry - picking the most recent 10 - year period starting in 2002, which shows a statistically significant (if shorter) cooling trend.

If you do it right, which is to look at enough data so you have a chance to observe a significant long - term trend, then you always detect a significant warming trend.»

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).

In the report, the panel emphasized that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

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

I do think, however, that it is significant (short term, not a firm trend) that CO2, as measured at MLO, has been increasing at a smaller rate than in previous years despite the fact that overall anthropogenic CO2 output is not decreasing and, furthermore, that the short term trend of the absolute increase is also down which indicates a greater rate of absorption of CO2 than in previous years — which to me would indicate an ongoing cooling of the oceans as per the theory that a cooling ocean absorbs more CO2 while a warming ocean releases more CO2.

How can anyone think that these warming and cooling trends are caused by CO2 emissions when CO2 emissions didn't become significant until the post WWII industrialisation era?

Jan Perliwtz wrote I do not have any problems at all with efforts to explain short - term variability, even if the deviations from the medium warming trend are not statistically significant.

One shows a statistically significant warming (at more than 90 % probability) very similar in magnitude to the surface temperature trends, the other one doesn't.

I do not have any problems at all with efforts to explain short - term variability, even if the deviations from the medium warming trend are not statistically significant.

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.»

The map of thickness temperature spatial trends and their zonal average over 1979 — 1996 (Fig. 2) shows that warming in the Northern Hemisphere is statistically significant only in several small isolated regions, and does not support a conclusion of general warming of the Northern Hemisphere troposphere — or the latitudinal characteristics reported in (1).

Phil Jones did not say that there «had been no significant warming» he was misquoted from a discussion of the statistical significance of the trend.

Finally, I judge that the Steig authors were very much aware of showing warming trends that were statistically significant and in order to do that one would be motivated to reach far enough back in time to do that.

I don't have access to JGR myself so I can't check properly, but everything I can see on the Jones et al 2009 findings again confirms that UHI does * not * play a significant role in the observed warming trend.

Monaghan 2008 does report a significant cooling at Byrd since 1992 (which pretty much undoes the warming before that time), but adds a warning: «Because portions of the Byrd record have been reconstructed, the negative temperature trends may be viewed with skepticism.»

This is spurious in my mind because 1) you have not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the DGP can in fact have a non-linear deterministic trend and 2) that you can fit other ARIMA (p, 1, q) models to data which will show a significant warming trend (as B & V did).