Sentences with phrase «significant warming trend of»

What I find most fantastical about the zeal of the climate modelers is how they will compose such contorted arguments to justify their claim of a scientifically significant warming trend of about 1 degree C over the last century.

The results of the study «show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night time, over wind farms relative to non-wind farms».

They find that, with an enlarged data set that has corrections for bias between drifting buoy data and data taken from ship intakes, as well as extended corrections for water cooling in buckets in the time between being drawn from the sea and being measured, there is a statistically significant warming trend of 0.086 °C per decade over the 1998 - 2012 period.

Not exact matches

The writing is on the wall, after 23 years of no significant warming and the last 8 years showing a slight cooling trend, there is every chance that we could see a steeper cooling trend arrive, PDO, AMO, Livingston and Penn (ap?).

Although a significant natural influence on weather patterns, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, and aren't linked to the overall warming trend.

I'd say a warming trend showing - up in one set of data no later than 1850 (significant enough to cause measurably increase rates of glacier melt) vs a warming trend not showing - up in another set of data until later than 1900 is a conflict that is well beyond a «bit silly.»

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

Still, given that the last decade has not seen a significant amount of warming (although any trend is swamped by noise), 20 years of little warming would give skeptics a little wiggle room.

Still, given that the last decade has not seen a significant amount of warming (although any trend is swamped by noise), 20 years of little warming would give skeptics a little wiggle room.

I'd say a warming trend showing - up in one set of data no later than 1850 (significant enough to cause measurably increase rates of glacier melt) vs a warming trend not showing - up in another set of data until later than 1900 is a conflict that is well beyond a «bit silly.»

The recent warming has been more pronounced in the Arctic Eurasia than in many other regions on our planet, but Franzke (2012) argues that only one out of 109 temperature records from this region exhibits a significant warming trend.

Pielke says the are a big deal, and he provides an analysis to suggest this accounts for a very significant amount of IPCC warming trend.

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.

Although a significant natural influence on interannual weather, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, and aren't linked to the overall warming trend.

Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.

-- we show no statistically significant warming for the continent as a whole over 1957 - 2006 (our finding is 0.06 ± 0.08 degrees C / decade, using a standard 95 % confidence interval; I state all subsequent trends on this basis), whereas S09 showed statistically significant warming of 0.12 ± 0.08.

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 significant northward trend (reduction of ice) in the winter - maximum ice edge is apparent, however, and appears to be caused by the gradual warming of sea - surface temperatures in the region (paper available on this if you want it).

Both the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) satellite (analyzed by the University of Alabama in Huntsville by John Christy and Roy Spencer) and weather balloon data (trends reported by a number of researchers, notably Jim Angell at NOAA) have failed to show significant warming since the satellite record began in late 1978, even though the surface record has been rising at its fastest pace (~ 0.15 C / decade) since instrumental records began.

which shows warming trends resulting from the cooling of early 20th century volcanism is still ongoing to a significant but diminishing extent into the 1950s.

The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923.

Despite the brevity of the time span, there's still a statistically significant warming trend in both data sets.

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that we have been in a significant warming trend over at least the last quarter of a century, and even that this is largely anthropogenically caused.

``... point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends,... It is interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause warming)» (of the upper atmosphere)

To me, the more subtle background trend is the significant one to watch because it's like the long - term warming of the climate itself.

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.

Although five years is far too short of a timespan to determine a significant trend, the trend since 2006 is positive (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).

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/to/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend For the UAH satellite data shown below, the trend and 95 % confidence levels for data since 1979 shows statistically significant warming: Trend: 0.138 ± 0.070 °C / decade (2σ) For the data from 1998 and 1999 Trend: 0.060 ± 0.223 °C / decade (2σ) Trend: 0.146 ± 0.212 °C / decade (2σ) That is, for the data since 1998 the trend has a 95 % probability of being between cooling of 0.163 and warming of 0.283 °C / decade.

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».

I can see how it might be reconciled with a relatively short - term «hiatus» (if you must) in the trend of significant increase in surface temperatures, but not with a «hiatus in warming.»

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.

Now it turns out the lack of warming has gone on for so long that even throwing in a one or two - year spike into it is not going to induce a significant warming trend in that data,» Michaels noted.

In April, the Met Office released figures up to the end of 2010 — an extremely warm year — which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically significant warming trend after 1997, albeit a very small one.

To counteract the undeniable fact that no significant warming has occurred since about 1997, Karlsson produces the breathtakingly self - interested assertion that ``... statistical significance relates to how probable the observe [d] data, or more extreme data, are on the null hypothesis, not the practical significance of the observed trend.

The CLAs advised against including this statement in the SPM, noting that: the research is currently inconclusive; overestimation of the models is too small to explain the overall effect and not statistically significant; and it is difficult to pinpoint the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend, with Co-Chair Stocker referring to this issue as an «emerging science topic.»

We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1 °C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m — 2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.

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.

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.

I think when people are clearly deaf to the obvious continuation of the warming, emphasising the higher OLS trend is perhaps justified but claims that it is significant — «a clear acceleration» — are probably a step too far.

They explain how, overall, Antarctic sea ice cover (frozen sea surface), for separate reasons involving wind changing in relation to the location of certain warming sea water currents, shows a slight upward trend, though it also shows significant melting in some areas.

... 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.

You appear slightly dismissive of a recent trend of «15 years or so» compared to the «decades before» and the «statistically significant upward - warming trend» from the mid-seventies.

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.

As described in the paper, climate warming specifically refers to the slow time evolution of the local July temperature as described by a smooth non-linear trend line, which reveals a significant climatic warming over the last three decades.

A general acknowledgement that it has not warmed significantly over a period of over a decade, despite the fact that human CO2 emissions have continued unabated, but that this trend is too short to be statistically significant.