Sentences with phrase «slight warming since»

In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long - term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970's).

Not exact matches

The team identified a cooling trend in the Pacific Ocean and a very slight warming trend in the Atlantic Ocean since the late 1990s.

My question is: Since these earlier relatively slight forcings prompted such considerable carbon feedbacks that drove warming much further than it would have gone otherwise, should we not expect some sort of carbon feedback to kick in from our considerable «artificial» forcing / warming?

Firstly, the overall warming of the globe of nearly 1 degree C since 1900 is hardly «slight».

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».

The sheaf of explanations for the apparent slight slowdown of surface warming since 1998, relative to the previous two decades, all help to reduce «noise» by assigning explicit mechanisms to previously - unexplained variation.

Since ARGO measurements started in 2003 the first estimate in 2008 showed slight upper ocean cooling; the corrected and extended estimate shows around 2 x10 ^ 22 Joules warming = around 0.02 C (0 - 700m)

These show a slight net cooling (i.e. a «pause» in the warming) since 1/1/2001.

My suspicion is that there is a bias in interpretation of XBT data to maintain the idea that the warming of the upper ocean since 1976 is due to increased co2, and the rescaling of XBT data works to reduce the impact of the ARGO data, which shows a «slight cooling» according to Craig Loehle and Josh WIllis (before his arm was twisted), and only a very slight increase according to Levitus 2010.

The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed), but that increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions.

But, hey, that last 30 year «accelerated» warming cycle ended after 2000 — since then we are seeing a slight cooling cycle (as we did for the 30 years or so before 1970).

AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming

Indeed none of them is able to hind - cast past observations and none of them has been able to foresee / explain current 14 years pause in climate warming since 1997 (even slight cooling since 2002).

-- since 2001 the models projected warming of 0.2 C per decade while the actual record shows slight cooling.

As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real - world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.

But Steve it surely does confirm Mann's Hockey Stick since it has found yet another way (using non-dendro proxies) to produce a sudden warming using statistical slight - of - hand that Mann would be proud of.

«For example, the gradual shift since the 1970s from (warm - biased) ship - based measurements to (cold - biased) drifting buoys has probably led to a slight underestimate of SST warming, says Richard Reynolds of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.»

There has been no net warming — and, in fact, an overall slight cooling — since the 1940s for the OAS temperature stations.

And the best estimate from the body of peer - reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100 % of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence.

● That climate natural variability is powerful enough to fully compensate manmade global warming (if any) and long term pause (as observed since 1997) or even slight cooling periods as observed from 1880 to 1910 or from 1940 to 1970.

Michaels points satellite data, claiming that «you see it's really not global warming, obviously -LSB-...] In fact, because there is a net statistically significant cooling of the whole record, it almost looks to me, as a scientist, like what's really going on here is the planet has remained in the slight cooling phase that it was in since World War II -LSB-...]» [93]

That would be fine and I would have accepted it had there not been a return to a slight warming trend since the mid 90s which is unlikely to have happened if the cause of the downward stratospheric temperature trend were other than solar.

But we only have measurements that amount to anything since ARGO started in 2003, and they first showed slight cooling and (after some adjustments) now show slight warming.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

This relatively large increase is explained by the increase in temperature since the SAR was completed, improved methods of analysis and the fact that the SAR decided not update the value in the First Assessment Report, despite slight additional warming.

I think it will look better than chrome, since chrome can sometimes have a slight bluish cast, and nickel has a softer, warmer glow.