Sentences with phrase «statistically significant warming trend»

The correlation between CO2 levels and anomalies is statistically significant, but that shouldn't be a surprise considering there's a statistically significant warming trend over time and CO2 levels have been increasing smoothly year on year.

In one case A is the Zero trend, in the other case A is the longer - term, statistically significant warming trend.

Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.

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.

Both reconstructions show a statistically significant warming trend.

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.

Maybe Jones meant there was no statistically significant warming trend, because there was a statistically significant cooling trend according to the satellite data;

A statistically significant warming trend is absent across NH landmasses during DJF going back to at least 1987, with either wintertime near - neutral or cooling trends.

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.

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.

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

There are more pronounced contrasts since 1979: autumn and, to a lesser extent, summer have predominantly negative trends in East Antarctica, while spring has large, statistically significant warming trends in West Antarctica.

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.

Not exact matches

Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant.

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.

-- 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.

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.

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.

Years 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2013 are among the warmest in record, but 2010 and 2012 that much cooler that the trend since 1989 is hardly statistically significant.

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.

As Figure 1 shows, the UAH warming trend over the past decade is indeed both positive and statistically significant once these three short - term effects are filtered out.

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.»

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.

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.

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.

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.

``... this robust old station, despite the urban effects, shows that there's been no statistically significant warming in Prague since 1800 (and at most 0.5 °C or so in 200 years, and I haven't subtracted any corrections for the intensification of Prague's urban heat island which may be as much as 0.6 °C per century and which would probably revert the 200 - year trend to a significant cooling!)

Since the rate of warming is supposedly about 1 °C per century, it would seem that any trend based on afternoon observations, where the TOBS error appears to create an additional ± 2.5 °C uncertainty (for 5:00 P.M.), would not be statistically significant.

And if you agree with Jones that no statistically significant warming has occured since 1995, then you have the previous 16 or 17 years to get your «significant» trend.

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.

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.

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

When is all the warming supposed to have happened then that made the trend from 1980 to today as clearly statistically significant?

Any statistically significant trends to the current date show 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.

The current lack of warming is not a statistically significant trend.

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.

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

«None of the [most recent] 10 - year trends is «statistically significant» but that's only because the uncertainties are so large — 10 years isn't long enough to determine the warming trend with sufficient precision.

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

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?»

There isnt enough landmass in the Tropics for that tiny net «windy» cooling trend (which Parker calls statistically insignificant) to offset the (statisitically significant) net «windy» warming trends in the extra-tropical NH.

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.

A.05 per decade trend is exactly that, a lack of statistically significant warming.

I suspect that what Monckton calls «no warming» should actually be «no statistically significant warming», which is a much weaker statement (meaning «there is a small (5 %) probability that such a trend occurs by chance alone»).