Sentences with phrase «stations show warming»

Overall, in this subset, 86 % of the stations show warming.

· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

All we really know is that more stations show warming than cooling, and the acccuracy of those measures is questionable.

Like the late John Daly noted, rural reporting stations show no warming trend going back 100 years.

The bad, mean and undisciplined station shows warming, and the lovely, calm and good station shows cooling.

Mosh, «anomalous» only in the context of the twice as many stations showing a warming trend.

So for example if a station shows a warming trend of 7 degC / century then it will be shown as a «dark red» dot.

With how many people have complained about the effects of UHI, why would anyone think it means anything that a single, urban station shows a warming trend not present in the trend of its area?

Placemarks for stations showing warming are yellow, blue for cooling.

Not exact matches

The locations of weather stations, changes in instruments, the siting of weather stations in warmer urban areas, changes in land cover and other issues have all been cited as issues affecting the temperature trends often used to show that our planet is in fact warming.

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure.

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to «unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming».

Several stations in the North Slope of Alaska and the Brooks Range had record or near - record high temperatures in the permafrost at depths of about 65 feet, showing how much the warming is affecting the Arctic environment.

Classic greenhouse warming with upper latitude amplification is shown in temperature 100 - 110 year plots for climate stations in the northern Great Plains, Upper Midwest and Alaska.

For an example, once a week, the Idso's «CO2 Science» web site would cherry pick a single station in the US Historical Climatology Network that happened to show cooling, to «prove that there has been no global warming in the past 70 years.»

The weather stations used «before the pause» showed definite warming, then these stations showed less warming.

And shouldn't it have helped reduce the element of surprise that a National Academy of Sciences study already concluded that the warming seen in the surface station record was «undoubtedly real,» that Menne et al showed that highly touted station siting issues did not in fact compromise the record, that the satellite record agrees with the surface record in every important respect (see Fig. 7 here), and that numerous independent studies (many of them by amateurs) also confirmed the warming trend?

«Over the past 50 years the poor stations in the US network do not show greater warming than do the good stations,» his notes say.

Why satellite measurements show much lower warming than earth stations, especially in western Europe?

As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to «unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming».

Although globally averaged annual temperatures warmed about 1 deg F since the early 1900s (viewed as rapid by paleoclimatologists and geologists), regional climate station annual temperatures in northern Minnesota show warming by several degrees F since the early 1900s.

So it is not surprising that his website only ever features those stations that confirm his beliefs (inbetween the reports of cold weather) and his «preliminary report» only features photos of stations that are (a) poorly - sited with a warming bias or (b) well - sited and show a cooling trend.

If I point my browser at the warmest points on the Arctic rim (according to both your graphs), the nearest stations with records that show the 1930s all show the 1930s as being warmer than the 1990s.

In addition, local inhomogeneities are variable; some urban stations show little or no warming, or even a slight cooling, relative to rural neighbors.

For an example, once a week, the Idso's «CO2 Science» web site would cherry pick a single station in the US Historical Climatology Network that happened to show cooling, to «prove that there has been no global warming in the past 70 years.»

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).

If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away «David Stockwell: if removing the contaminated stations reduced the 20th century increase to the point there was no increase in temperature, how could that possibly improve model fit, when the models show an increase of 0.5 deg?»

How many times have we seen someone select two stations «randomly» and see that they don't show significant warming over a limited range of time and conclude there's no climate change?

The Idsos would ignore both old and recent data, corrections, and the overwhelming majority of USHCN stations which showed warming trends.

In fact, surface station measurements show a significant warming, while MSU measurements do not.

I was a guest on the Michele Tafoya Show on Twin Cites News Talk station, WCCO 830 AM on Tuesday to discuss global warming and our website, GlobalClimateScam.com.

Somehow all the station changes show a large bias towards moving from warmer to colder locations thus requiring either an upward adjustment to data prior to the move or downward adjustment to data before the move.

Unfortunately, it shows no warming over the past ten years or so, so NCDC sticks to their analysis of less suitable stations because they can find ways to adjust it to provide the required warming.

And as far as the Antarctic is concerned: There hasn't been no significant warming since 1955 (the 7 station series from New Zealand show the same and for what it's worth I don't trust the BOM temperature - series)

Figure B shows the scenario for the change in annual mean temperature per 1 C global warming using this method for 248 meteorological stations.

Stockholm 2011: designer Mia Gammelgaard of Copenhagen showed this wooden chair with leg warmers for Swedish firm Blå Station at Stockholm Furniture Fair last week.

A The Hadcrut 4 figures that show a «pause» in warming lasting nearly 16 years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at sea.

Plus, they found, data from only the 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org classified as «good» or better showed warming over time that was similar to the overall data NOAA had been using.

However, again, the urban stations also show an underlying warming trend, which substantially changes the context of the trends.

After raising concerns about the reliability of the monitoring stations that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) relies on to measure the U.S. surface - temperature data used to show warming over time, Watts began to investigate.

Surely, there's got to be some other global warming indicator that shows a long - term global warming trend...» Remarkably, aside from the weather station record estimates, almost all of the so - called «global warming indicators» are short - term estimates...

If you only use linear trends for analysing the temperature record for Valentia Observatory, you might mistakenly conclude, «it shows a «warming trend», and it's rural, so even the rural stations show «unusual global warming»».

The late John Daly showed that there was no evidence for any global warming at over 200 rural and remote weather stations upto ca. 2001.

It is not known if the BoM's testing paramaters which establish a 1972 metrication warming anomaly around.1 C in Australia are applicable to New Zealand's temperature records, which show similar whole degree rounding patterns caused by weather station observers not recording fractions in the Fahrenheit era and software communication errors in the Celsius era.

A small navel air station 15 miles away which wasn't in this heat bubble shows no warming during this period.

The chart below shows how Perth Airport was consistently warmer until 2011, since when the difference between maxima at the two stations has become more stable:

Thousands of weather stations data around the world show a warming Earth, I don't care what it's doing far above my head.

If the rest of the US states have as much adjustment, GISS won't need to homogenize the station data to show «unprecedented warming.»

Stations ranked as «poor» in a survey by Anthony Watts and his team of the most important temperature recording stations in the U.S., (known as the USHCN — the US Historical Climatology Network), showed the same pattern of global warming as stations ranked «OK.»